In my opinion, this position requires some cherry picking to avoid evidence of times when different things have improved over the past few decades.
Quite the opposite. The times when we have made improvements have come precisely because we have made the sorts of decisive changes that we needed to make, that we are currently pretending are impossible.
We actually solved the issue with the ozone layer, precisely because we took action and passed regulation banning their usage, despite the objections of businesses.
Same thing with leaded petrol. We took decisive action and addressed the problem at a systemic level, rather than just softly appealing for people to make the “right choice uwu”.
In our current unprecedented circumstances, drastic change on a short timescale is going to require one of two things: the suspension of our democracy, or wide-scale bloodshed. Neither of these is actually particularly likely to result in positive change either.
I agree that unrest seems basically inevitable. Because the people with the power to make the changes required have shown us in no uncertain terms that they never make the changes required.
So I’m not sure why continuing to pander to those delusions with half-measures is preferable.
I’m hoping change can be accomplished through general strikes and direct action. So that widespread bloodshed can be avoided.
The problem is there may not be survival at the end of this tunnel. But only one way might work in time, and that’s the one we’ve been using for a couple centuries and seen okayish results with.
Oh. So you are completely insane. Because we absolutely have not been seeing okayish results.
I don’t only see disaster. But I do see a specific problem, with a very obvious answer, that continues to get worse and worse with catastrophic future consequences. A problem that we continuously refuse to address in a meaningful manner.
I said this to someone else, we need to move forward. Prevention is now impossible without using military force to achieve our goals, which we cannot do, being bound by ethics. We cannot get Modi to cut his emissions, he doesn’t particularly like us. And his right-leaning style is very popular in India.
We’re onto limiting worsening, mitigation, and maybe someday reversal? We lost prevention though, time to move on.
I’m not going to watch a whole youtube video just to pick up on the latest lingo.
No, mitigation does not require “drastic” action, fortunately. We’ve significantly mitigated it already, concerning our own emissions, and can do so further.
Do you have an idea that might mitigate it overseas, or change domestic politics enough to speed things up here? I don’t think nonviolent protest is going to do it, there’s not enough of us willing to do so.
I’m not going to watch a whole youtube video just to pick up on the latest lingo.
Deny it’s happening, then claim we can’t change anything once it’s happened. The moment where we could do something about it is skipped over.
Like you are doing now.
No, mitigation does not require “drastic” action, fortunately. We’ve significantly mitigated it already, concerning our own emissions, and can do so further.
What world do you live on? Certainly not the one the rest of us do. Our emissions have only been increasing.
Yes we require drastic action. In fact we required drastic action decades ago. Now we require radical action.
Do you have an idea that might mitigate it overseas, or change domestic politics enough to speed things up here?
First and foremost, stop pointing your finger overseas. It is nothing but a distraction, a convenient excuse to not do what needs to be done domestically because “oh but China and India”.
Secondly, investment in equipping developing nations with clean energy infrastructure can help.
I don’t think nonviolent protest is going to do it, there’s not enough of us willing to do so.
Ultimately it is going to have to come down to protest.
I am hoping non-violent methods, such as general strikes and direct action will be enough.
But that does require solidarity, motivation, and mutual aid.
Quite the opposite. The times when we have made improvements have come precisely because we have made the sorts of decisive changes that we needed to make, that we are currently pretending are impossible.
We actually solved the issue with the ozone layer, precisely because we took action and passed regulation banning their usage, despite the objections of businesses.
Same thing with leaded petrol. We took decisive action and addressed the problem at a systemic level, rather than just softly appealing for people to make the “right choice uwu”.
I agree that unrest seems basically inevitable. Because the people with the power to make the changes required have shown us in no uncertain terms that they never make the changes required.
So I’m not sure why continuing to pander to those delusions with half-measures is preferable.
I’m hoping change can be accomplished through general strikes and direct action. So that widespread bloodshed can be avoided.
Oh. So you are completely insane. Because we absolutely have not been seeing okayish results.
I suppose it depends on what you consider “okayish”. You sound to me like a utopian, which I admire, but cannot personally accept.
At any rate, if you look out at our world and see only disaster, that’s a function of your news feed, not reality. It’s just not that black and white.
I don’t only see disaster. But I do see a specific problem, with a very obvious answer, that continues to get worse and worse with catastrophic future consequences. A problem that we continuously refuse to address in a meaningful manner.
I said this to someone else, we need to move forward. Prevention is now impossible without using military force to achieve our goals, which we cannot do, being bound by ethics. We cannot get Modi to cut his emissions, he doesn’t particularly like us. And his right-leaning style is very popular in India.
We’re onto limiting worsening, mitigation, and maybe someday reversal? We lost prevention though, time to move on.
You’re responding to a point I didn’t make. Even mitigation requires the drastic action you are arguing is impossible.
But also, no, y’all don’t get to slow-breakup this.
I’m not going to watch a whole youtube video just to pick up on the latest lingo.
No, mitigation does not require “drastic” action, fortunately. We’ve significantly mitigated it already, concerning our own emissions, and can do so further.
Do you have an idea that might mitigate it overseas, or change domestic politics enough to speed things up here? I don’t think nonviolent protest is going to do it, there’s not enough of us willing to do so.
Deny it’s happening, then claim we can’t change anything once it’s happened. The moment where we could do something about it is skipped over.
Like you are doing now.
What world do you live on? Certainly not the one the rest of us do. Our emissions have only been increasing.
Yes we require drastic action. In fact we required drastic action decades ago. Now we require radical action.
First and foremost, stop pointing your finger overseas. It is nothing but a distraction, a convenient excuse to not do what needs to be done domestically because “oh but China and India”.
Secondly, investment in equipping developing nations with clean energy infrastructure can help.
Ultimately it is going to have to come down to protest.
I am hoping non-violent methods, such as general strikes and direct action will be enough.
But that does require solidarity, motivation, and mutual aid.
Get your facts straight first, otherwise it becomes fully apparent you’re really just trying to obfuscate the entire issue.
US emissions over time:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions
deleted by creator
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
slow-breakup
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Uhhh…
That’s fair. We try though, just not all of us.