No duh, because not a single country has made any real attempt to lower their citizens’ emissions.
It will take sacrifice from all of us to stop warming.
Forget 1.5°C, honestly, forget 2°C as well, keeping it under 3°C is likely the best that we can hope for right now. You’re needing to throw out our gas-based car infrastructure, reduce our reliance on jets as much as possible, lower not just meat consumption but also almonds/alfalfa/etc., and that is just to get started.
Really, I don’t see the average voter letting that happen. What’s going to happen is eventually, sometime 30-40 years from now, a heat wave is gonna thrash the Middle East, consistent 130°F days for a solid month, 100,000 people dead, and the very next year planes will be in the air, making clouds to block the sun.
We are not ready to give up the things that the developed world will have to give up to truly back away from this coming apocalypse.
The majority of emissions come from just a handful of large companies, even if every individual cut their carbon footprint to zero those companies would still continue to kill the planet. It’s also easier to change the behaviour of some companies than every person on the planet.
So clearly we need a different solution than cutting back on emissions.
I’d argue we might have to start human expansion into space to have any real positive impact. A solar shade, for example, could block out enough sunlight to artificially prevent warming and stabilize the climate while we construct or seek out alternative energy resources.
Planes are kinda necessary now and less of a convenience. I moved to Miami from NJ (where the rest of my family lives) and just came home today for Thanksgiving. Driving would have taken around 3 days/about 23 hours of total driving and cost a few hundred bucks in gas and maintenance costs. I flew home in under 3 hours and it cost me about $100.
My buddy in NJ married a British woman, so for her, if planes didn’t exist her only option would be to take a boat home which easily takes a week or two, instead it takes her about 7 hours.
We live in an age where you can literally talk face to face with virtually anyone, nearly anywhere in the world on a tiny rectangle in your pocket. Yes, we can all afford to travel a little less over long distances.
Not everyone has a smartphone or webcam, you, right? My father is 73 and has neither, he doesn’t like to videochat because he feels it impersonal. My mom has a smartphone but doesn’t video chat with anyone. So I’m just supposed to not see my parents for a year or more because they don’t want to video chat?
What you consider “normal” isn’t exactly normal. This isn’t the 1800s.
Umm you know that trains take energy to run right? The energy doesn’t come out of thin air. Most trains either run off diesel fuel which is dirty as hell or they run off electric and that energy is usually from burning fossil fuels.
So your suggestion is “don’t use this one method of transportation that burns fossil fuels, use this other method of transportation that takes longer and still burns fossil fuels!”
Your American perspective is only a thin slice of the world. Don’t be so conceited.
you know that trains take energy to run right?
Less energy per passenger, and the energy sources available are much more diverse.
run off electric and that energy is usually from burning fossil fuels. [sic]
In ass-backwards places, sure. You know Brazil, that country to the south of yours, with a comparable landmass and population? More than 85% of their electricity comes from renewable sources. I guess 'murica is too much of a shithole to figure this one out.
So your suggestion is “don’t use this one method of transportation that burns fossil fuels, use this other method of transportation that takes longer and still burns fossil fuels!” [sic]
So the implication is that you think the efficiency of a process is meaningless and the path to an outcome is unimportant (which is braindead). You may as well drop dead right now, then, since “you’ll still die some day, anyway”.
So people aren’t supposed to move anywhere in your opinion, and if you do,just forget about seeing them for years. The US is a hell of a lot bigger than any European country.
Not that far and still expect to see family for every freaking occasion. I meant through Europe, if I’m Dutch and my family is in Spain, I’m not going for Christmas or whatever. Maybe once in a few years, or stay for a vacation not just a few days. That’s idiotic.
My parents are getting older and I want to see them as much as I can while still living where I want to. IMO its ridiculous to be like “live in a place you don’t like because you want to see your family often or live where you want to and rarely see your family.” There is a middle ground. Yo may be cool with seeing your family once a year, I’m not.
No duh, because not a single country has made any real attempt to lower their citizens’ emissions.
It will take sacrifice from all of us to stop warming.
Forget 1.5°C, honestly, forget 2°C as well, keeping it under 3°C is likely the best that we can hope for right now. You’re needing to throw out our gas-based car infrastructure, reduce our reliance on jets as much as possible, lower not just meat consumption but also almonds/alfalfa/etc., and that is just to get started.
Really, I don’t see the average voter letting that happen. What’s going to happen is eventually, sometime 30-40 years from now, a heat wave is gonna thrash the Middle East, consistent 130°F days for a solid month, 100,000 people dead, and the very next year planes will be in the air, making clouds to block the sun.
We are not ready to give up the things that the developed world will have to give up to truly back away from this coming apocalypse.
The majority of emissions come from just a handful of large companies, even if every individual cut their carbon footprint to zero those companies would still continue to kill the planet. It’s also easier to change the behaviour of some companies than every person on the planet.
So clearly we need a different solution than cutting back on emissions.
I’d argue we might have to start human expansion into space to have any real positive impact. A solar shade, for example, could block out enough sunlight to artificially prevent warming and stabilize the climate while we construct or seek out alternative energy resources.
Wouldn’t this undermine solar-generated electricity?
and our ability to grow food
But telling people to lower their emissions because the world is on fucking fire, is eugenics! /s
Planes are kinda necessary now and less of a convenience. I moved to Miami from NJ (where the rest of my family lives) and just came home today for Thanksgiving. Driving would have taken around 3 days/about 23 hours of total driving and cost a few hundred bucks in gas and maintenance costs. I flew home in under 3 hours and it cost me about $100.
My buddy in NJ married a British woman, so for her, if planes didn’t exist her only option would be to take a boat home which easily takes a week or two, instead it takes her about 7 hours.
The other option is to not expect to see people who live a plane flight away every year.
So you’re supposed to lessen your relationships just because you moved away?
We live in an age where you can literally talk face to face with virtually anyone, nearly anywhere in the world on a tiny rectangle in your pocket. Yes, we can all afford to travel a little less over long distances.
Not everyone has a smartphone or webcam, you, right? My father is 73 and has neither, he doesn’t like to videochat because he feels it impersonal. My mom has a smartphone but doesn’t video chat with anyone. So I’m just supposed to not see my parents for a year or more because they don’t want to video chat?
Yes, that’s how normal people live. Or, you know, HAVE FUCKING TRAINS.
What you consider “normal” isn’t exactly normal. This isn’t the 1800s.
Umm you know that trains take energy to run right? The energy doesn’t come out of thin air. Most trains either run off diesel fuel which is dirty as hell or they run off electric and that energy is usually from burning fossil fuels.
So your suggestion is “don’t use this one method of transportation that burns fossil fuels, use this other method of transportation that takes longer and still burns fossil fuels!”
Really great argument you have there! 🤦♂️
Your American perspective is only a thin slice of the world. Don’t be so conceited.
Less energy per passenger, and the energy sources available are much more diverse.
In ass-backwards places, sure. You know Brazil, that country to the south of yours, with a comparable landmass and population? More than 85% of their electricity comes from renewable sources. I guess 'murica is too much of a shithole to figure this one out.
So the implication is that you think the efficiency of a process is meaningless and the path to an outcome is unimportant (which is braindead). You may as well drop dead right now, then, since “you’ll still die some day, anyway”.
Planes are ubiquitous to the global north. They’re not an American thing.
www.duckduckgo.com/?q=EU+railway
Or just… live closer together. You don’t see Europeans fly from Germany to the other side just for a few family days
So people aren’t supposed to move anywhere in your opinion, and if you do,just forget about seeing them for years. The US is a hell of a lot bigger than any European country.
Not that far and still expect to see family for every freaking occasion. I meant through Europe, if I’m Dutch and my family is in Spain, I’m not going for Christmas or whatever. Maybe once in a few years, or stay for a vacation not just a few days. That’s idiotic.
Yes, wanting to see your family is idiotic 🙄
Are you being purposefully obtuse?
My parents are getting older and I want to see them as much as I can while still living where I want to. IMO its ridiculous to be like “live in a place you don’t like because you want to see your family often or live where you want to and rarely see your family.” There is a middle ground. Yo may be cool with seeing your family once a year, I’m not.
I’m not either, that’s why I live closer
Trains!