once.more.around.the.sun
Bread and CircusesIt's a binary proposition, a fork in the road. We can choose one or the other, but not both.
#Science #Environment #Climate #ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #Degrowth
๊ฎ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ซ๐ฏ๐ฑ๐จ๐ฑ๐ง@breadandcircuses mankind lived on fossil fuels for centuries
Just throttle your greediness
Just throttle your greediness
Jesse@liilliil @breadandcircuses if you use less fossil fuels you can push the problem further in to the future but the problem will still eventually get here. Releasing carbon that was locked up millions of years ago isn't compatible with human survival.
@jessta @breadandcircuses nonsense. Just keep the balance
DifferentEarth2060@liilliil @jessta @breadandcircuses
Nope. If we balance emissions with natural capture at TODAY's levels the warming continues and the disasters get more frequent, because there's too much CO2 up there. We are not at a concentration that should be maintained, therefore balance is not desirable right now.
We need to cut ALL emissions, meaning ALL burning of fuels, so that natural carbon sinks can start absorbing some of the excess CO2 we put up there and eventually we may return things to the kind of balance we had pre-1970 (or better). But aiming for balance right now (aka "net zero" instead of zero-zero) is a mistake. Or at best it's a "let them down easy" PR strategy, get people used to the idea of net-zero first, and break the bad news about it later.
LE:
Looked into it a bit more and it seems when the IPCC introduced "net zero" they actually said "anthropogenic net zero", meaning only human-made sinks, no natural sinks. That explains the discrepancy I'm seeing in public discourse even from experts like Mann: their "net zero" is what I call "zero-zero" (because antho carbon-capture is so expensive as to not matter at scale), they just forget to always say "anthropogenic".
@zir4n @jessta @breadandcircuses you canโt cut all emissions, you need to cut off all peopleโs greediness first. All the rest is utopia
@liilliil @jessta @breadandcircuses
Greed does nothing if turning it into action is banned and punished. We can't erase human greed since it's part of human nature, but we can block some of the actions that it's been motivating, specifically... the burning of concentrated underground fuels. ๐
So no, you can't block human nature, you can only block human physical action. Someone who's put in jail in a straitjacket WILL be stopped from burning anymore fuels, but they might very well still be greedy inside their head - that's fine, that's not what matters in solving the climate problem.
เฒเฒฟเฒฐเฒพเฒเณ ๐นโ๐พโ๐ฑ๐ต๐ธ (he/him)
StarkRG@liilliil @jessta @breadandcircuses Right there is the problem. There literally is no balance when it comes to fossil fuels. The balance is that the carbon stored in the fossil fuels stays there for as long as we want to continue using this atmosphere.
Ossie Rinning
Michael WehleThe "we" here is deceptive. Who is the "we" with the wherewithal to "end the fossil fuel industry"? Statements like this continually ignore capitalism.
Old Man@breadandcircuses
I remember the oil embargo/energy crisis from over fifty years ago. I really thought they were going to fix the problem. wrong again old man.
I remember the oil embargo/energy crisis from over fifty years ago. I really thought they were going to fix the problem. wrong again old man.
We can not keep converting stored energy into heat and greenhouse gases.
It just can not work.
But, when people are addicted to money, sanity flys away.
climate voter/degrowthist@breadandcircuses Too bad, in this election system, there are no debates going on about this.
hmm. ice ball earth. dinosaurs in the arctic. solar system planets pulling on orbits and the sun. solar cycles. we need to know how things changed so much when there wasn't a single liberal around. explanation? i'm waiting.
shouldn't be a problem for you experts after all.
Erik Uden ๐ฉ