79
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by Lwaxana@startrek.website to c/science@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

I agree, but it's this or nothing, as of the past couple years. Halting emissions in a world where major petroleum producers are engaged in warfighting, alongside the rise of fascism, is untenable.

Fascists see not just hydrocarbons, but humans as a resource, to be used. You better believe they give no fucks about climate. Pain and suffering are considered good things. And besides, would global warming really hurt Russia's long term prospects?

If that's madness, I'd point out that sanity by our standards is not the direction of very recent times.

[-] Eheran@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

If we can't even reduce emissions, then we can 10x less remove CO2 directly. That is like a gambling addict trying to cure the addiction by playing a different addictive game in parallel, instead of playing the one game less and less.

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

We can reduce our emissions, and we will. We just can't make everyone else reduce theirs too. Which is why we will need multiple approaches, not just one or two.

this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024
79 points (95.4% liked)

science

14983 readers
589 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS