Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment

Sure, but the point should be that we should strive to share cars, not that it's okay to take the plane! Especially given the second argument which is that you don't drive 1000km every time you take your car. The footprint per km is not enough: when you take the plane you typically go much further!

> Probably, yes; last year passed the threshold

That, plus the IPCC scenario that keeps us under 1.5C says that in a few decades, not only we won't be extracting any carbon anymore, but we will be pumping carbon underground faster than we are extracting it now! And that's with the IPCC models which tend to be optimistic (we measure that every year)!

> 14 because it would take 14 years for the exponential — seen for the last 30 years — for PV to replace all forms of power consumption

And you would have to take into account that PV today entirely relies on oil. We are going towards a world with less and less oil, and we don't know how it will impact our capacity of production for PVs. But probably it won't help.

> In so far as your bracket, sure; but there's a huge gap in what equipment you would need.

Sure. It was a quick way to say that the combination of humidity and temperature will be such that sweating won't help humans regulate their temperature. And when we can't regulate our temperature, we die. By any account, this means that billions of people will have to relocate, which means global wars (with entire countries moving with their entire armies).

Now of course that would be infinitely better than trying to live on Mars, which is why it is preposterous to even consider Mars.

Myself I've not driven at least since late 2017, thanks to excellent and cheap public transport; even before the Germany-wide €58/month ticket, the more expensive Berlin-AB ticket that I used to get was much much less than your $15k/year.

Do most people plan like that?

* usually, though IIRC buying a house in Switzerland gets you a tax equal to the money you saved from not renting it?

sure, STEM will continue to find remedies and cures but at some point we're fucked just because the gene pool was reduced to an unnaturally selected bunch that survived & thrived completely alienated from the actual world.

sure, no biggie, wahaha, that's the name of the game, the old will die, the young repeat the same nonsense and that microbiome and all that other stuff we carry with us as hosts, potentially most likely in a beneficial symbiotic relationship, have no implicit mechanisms to cancel the contract and pivot towards some species or other that won't be d u m b enough to shit all over it's own home & garden, consequently ruining the bio-chemistry with the smell, taste and look of feces everywhere - in the body as well as outside - and all that while it's getting a bit hot in here.

and I doubt that the consequences of controlled demise in a deteriorating environment all while the meds and drugs of leadership and the people fade out quite a few of the brains and the bodies implicit reactions to a lot of sensory perceptions to everything that was vital, crucial to notice for a 'million' years can't be projected to at least some degree. I mean "blindspots" are a thinking tool, after all, but those thinking brains and minds believe in black swans and the better angels of our nature so that doesn't really mean a thing.

the population itself is fine, a habit of psycho-social education and all consecutive upper levels being insanely afraid of competition and insights from below. thing is, whatever financial survival schemes people are running, they all have death cult written all over their faces.

btw, most of this was for fun, I'm really not worried at all. climate change is more a cycle than man-made acceleration. my only point of interest is the deterioration of the species due to all the things that we do and then worry more about the habitat than our and all kinds.

we absolutely can turn the planet into a conservatory. through any climate.

https://chatgpt.com/share/678b6b3e-9708-8009-bcad-8ba84a5145...

The issue is that they are often localised, so even if it’s just 1% of power, it can cause issues.

Still, by itself, grid issues don’t mean climate issues. And any argument complaining about a co2 cost should also consider alternative cost to be reliable. Even if ai was causing 1% or 2% or 10% of energy use, the real question is how much it saves by making society more efficient. And even if it wasn’t, it’s again more of a question about energy companies polluting with co2.

Microsoft, which hosts OpenAI, is famously amazing in terms of their co2 emissions - so far they were going way beyond what other companies were doing.

For example the OP was talking about plastic. A 2% reduction in plastic waste has a clear benefit, because any amount of plastic reduction is a bonus. However it is not clear that a 5% reduction in CO2 emissions due to Americans driving their cars less will have any meaningful difference when it comes to climate change.