‘Magical’ tech innovations a distraction from real solutions, climate experts warn | Overemphasis on innovation and carbon removal risks distracting from main goal of stopping use of fossil fuels, say - eviltoast
  • Candelestine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Just so long as we realize that forcing other countries who are unfriendly towards us is a similarly magical solution. We cannot control the globe. The UN cannot. China cannot. People get to make their own decisions, whether good ones or bad ones. I mean, we can’t even rein in our ally Israel from hurting themselves when we want.

    So if we pump all our effort into some kind of possibly unrealistic hope that global carbon neutral is possible in time, and then we fail … it’s just too perilous. Other methods need investment and attention too.

    None of our possible solutions are without a little “magic”, so maybe we should diversify our efforts a little. That’s the gist of it imo.

    Unless there’s a proposed solution somewhere I don’t know about, that has realistic details on how to successfully negotiate these deals. One made by people in the field of international politics, preferably, who know how to consider things like money earmarked for one thing being stolen by someone greedy. Which happens all the time, even in the US.

    edit to clarify

    • kurwa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      All solutions should be considered because we shouldn’t put all of our eggs in one basket, but going the more obvious / simple route, as least for ourselves, should be the main solution. We don’t need to create roundabout solutions that somehow allow us to have our cake and eat it too.

      • Candelestine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        For ourselves for sure. But even if 100% successful, we would still lose Florida to the seas. While the ultimate value of that is debatable, it would still be a slow humanitarian catastrophe.

        It’s about what’ll work, what’ll keep the world going for our kids. Whatever it takes at this point, cake, no cake, all the cake, burn the cake. Don’t care.

    • demesisx@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I have an idea: what if we were to bomb the shit out of countries that are major polluters. We should go to war over the fate of this earth but instead we go to war over the need to execute millions of people so we can get at their oil.

        • demesisx@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Of course we are. However, China is even worse. Obviously I am being unrealistic but it’s funny how the most important thing in the world (the world itsself) is less important to the world’s societies than an artificial construct like money. You can’t bring your belongings with you when you die.

          • Jaded@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Per capita, we pollute twice as much as China does. On top of that, most of their pollution is directly linked to making products for us.

            We are the bad guys here, no contest. Especially when looking at how our government fights the transition every step of the way.

            I totally agree though, it’s completely mental that the environment isn’t our top priority.