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

science

14741 readers
501 users here now

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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 8 months ago (1 children)

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 8 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.