• tikitaki@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    instead of making an effort to change our way of life.

    the unfortunate reality is the only way to significantly change carbon emissions in a fast enough time period would essentially mean throwing all of humanity back a couple of centuries in tech and standard of living

    you try being a politician who advocates for this. you’re not gonna get elected

    even worse, convince all the 3rd world countries who are currently developing trying to get their people out of poverty. the chinese have finally gotten the taste for a little bit of meat with their dinner. of course that comes at the cost of mountains of coal being burned.

    you tell those hundreds of millions of people that they need to go back to the farms and eat rice for the climate - meanwhile we got our chance to burn as much coal as we wanted to last century.

    the reality is that we won’t be able to stop climate change. the reality is that we’re going to have to learn to live with it. and we will. climate change will not destroy us. it will destroy many species, will destroy many habitable zones. but we will survive.

    i’m more worried about nuclear war & AI - which i think has a much more acute danger

    • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not necessarily true that we have to throw humanity back to the 1600s. Nuclear fission could realistically and safely bring out carbon emissions under control and serve as an actually viable load backbone for a renewable grid (as opposed to having giant battery facilities). We can also pivot away from car dependent infrastructure and long-haul trucking in favor of more walkable cities, better public transit, and expanded freight rail networks.