It's always just been another excuse to keep the economic status quo. We've had all the technology we need for a long time to solve emissions. We're not waiting on any battery tech breakthrough that can sustain a renewable grid, hydroelectric has been doing it this whole time. Motor pumps water uphill, water turns generator when it goes downhill, congratulations you have stored renewable energy with water and a hill. Use pulleys and weights, use tanks and air pressure, whatever you want, it just has to be built. There's no missing link here, it's just boring and doesnt have much opportunity for tech startup investment.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Climate change topic aside isn’t this the truth for many things. People are hungry to showcase and market their product and as a result reality takes a backseat. It’s part of the race. If there was no “rat race” would it be like this?
It’s not even limited to products and business. Basically people do all that they can to project what they perceive reality to be, and as a result we are left with a fake world? And we are all responsible, it’s a human fault? And at the same time that fake world is reality…? The base paradox of existentialism?
In this case, we’ve also got the oil industry paying big bucks to showcase a tool that’s a tiny and expensive part of what we should be doing, and suggest to people that we can just do that one thing, rather than do the work needed to get off fossil fuels entirely. That’s putting a huge promotional budget behind it, which buys off major media outlets.
Add comment