• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’m not disputing the situation we’re actually in. What I’m pointing out is that we don’t know for certain what will happen, and all we can do is prepare to the best of our ability. I’m not sure what you find so controversial about that.

    • fannin [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      That’s what I find controversial, we basically do know for certain what will happen and it’s at least 4c warming guaranteed by now, which will create an apocalypse. Humanity will survive, sure, but in pockets as-is. 1% emmission reductions aren’t doing anything at all about that.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        While 4c warming is certainly a very possible scenario, it is by no means guaranteed. That aside, you continue to ignore what I’m actually saying to you, which is that we can use technology to help buffer against the effects of the climate. Even at 4c warming, it will be possible to maintain civilization, just not in the form it exists today. I’m not talking about 1% emission reductions solving the problem anywhere. What I actually said that stuff like solar makes it possible to do indoor farming and provide air conditioning that will make it possible to make it through droughts and heatwaves. Our globalized economy is absolutely going to collapse once climate disasters become more prevalent, but that just means building out resilience at local scale. Simply saying that we’re headed for 4c climate apocalypse and everything is meaningless is not constrictive in any way. It’s just fatalism and it leads to doing nothing useful.