• Candelestine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    I suppose it depends on what you consider “okayish”. You sound to me like a utopian, which I admire, but cannot personally accept.

    At any rate, if you look out at our world and see only disaster, that’s a function of your news feed, not reality. It’s just not that black and white.

    • darq@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      I don’t only see disaster. But I do see a specific problem, with a very obvious answer, that continues to get worse and worse with catastrophic future consequences. A problem that we continuously refuse to address in a meaningful manner.

      • Candelestine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        I said this to someone else, we need to move forward. Prevention is now impossible without using military force to achieve our goals, which we cannot do, being bound by ethics. We cannot get Modi to cut his emissions, he doesn’t particularly like us. And his right-leaning style is very popular in India.

        We’re onto limiting worsening, mitigation, and maybe someday reversal? We lost prevention though, time to move on.

        • darq@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          You’re responding to a point I didn’t make. Even mitigation requires the drastic action you are arguing is impossible.

          But also, no, y’all don’t get to slow-breakup this.

          • Candelestine@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            I’m not going to watch a whole youtube video just to pick up on the latest lingo.

            No, mitigation does not require “drastic” action, fortunately. We’ve significantly mitigated it already, concerning our own emissions, and can do so further.

            Do you have an idea that might mitigate it overseas, or change domestic politics enough to speed things up here? I don’t think nonviolent protest is going to do it, there’s not enough of us willing to do so.

            • darq@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              I’m not going to watch a whole youtube video just to pick up on the latest lingo.

              Deny it’s happening, then claim we can’t change anything once it’s happened. The moment where we could do something about it is skipped over.

              Like you are doing now.

              No, mitigation does not require “drastic” action, fortunately. We’ve significantly mitigated it already, concerning our own emissions, and can do so further.

              What world do you live on? Certainly not the one the rest of us do. Our emissions have only been increasing.

              Yes we require drastic action. In fact we required drastic action decades ago. Now we require radical action.

              Do you have an idea that might mitigate it overseas, or change domestic politics enough to speed things up here?

              First and foremost, stop pointing your finger overseas. It is nothing but a distraction, a convenient excuse to not do what needs to be done domestically because “oh but China and India”.

              Secondly, investment in equipping developing nations with clean energy infrastructure can help.

              I don’t think nonviolent protest is going to do it, there’s not enough of us willing to do so.

              Ultimately it is going to have to come down to protest.

              I am hoping non-violent methods, such as general strikes and direct action will be enough.

              But that does require solidarity, motivation, and mutual aid.

                  • Candelestine@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    11 months ago

                    Trump isn’t in charge anymore. If you think some tampering makes a source unreliable on everything else too, then you must be a genuine anarchist that literally believes nothing…?

                    World is just more complicated than that, and the feds can swing in whatever direction they want, depending on who’s giving the orders.

                    Lumping it all together as some USGOV thing is just typical conspiracy stuff though. Details are critically important in real life.

                    edit: Ah ha, tried to sneak a stealth edit past me? Cute, but I know the tricks. Biden appointees aren’t necessary. Simply oversight that the science underpinning the results has been correctly performed. Anyone can perform science properly, it doesn’t matter what “side” they’re on.

                    edit2: Here’s another source, though they only have data until 2021, which will still have covid mucking up the data. But still some interesting stuff in here:

                    https://www.climatewatchdata.org/countries/USA?end_year=2020&start_year=1990