This kind of talk isn’t really useful and is making the problem worse. Where are you getting all this from? You must have some good sources to make claims like this.
There wasn’t a time line 25 years ago where we could use only technological solutions as said technological solutions didn’t exist. Those have only been invented since then, many still haven’t been invented or are still being worked on now. Take batteries for example, it took us until the 2010s to manufacture enough lithium ion batteries with the right chemistry to even think about using them as grid storage. Said batteries still have limited lifespans and manufacturing them is costly to the environment and requires lithium which has a limited supply. We really need Sodium ion batteries but those are only ramping production now. Starting to switch over 50 years ago would have been even more impossible, not that we understood the problem fully 50 years ago. This is all revising history.
Fyi CO2 levels have been higher in the past than they are now. None of this is actually new, it’s just changing far faster than it would naturally. It’s the speed that’s the issue, not the actual magnitude of the change. It’s a case of changing things faster than nature takes to adapt. We are still technically in an ice age after all. Pollutants like microplastics and forever chemicals are the new thing, not greenhouse gasses. No one has any idea what that might lead to in the long term.
You feel insane because your suggesting things should have happened before they are actually possible. You are saying things that are extremely alarmist without giving evidence and without considering context.
Edit:
There was one way to decarbonize earlier than 25 years ago or maybe before. It’s called Nuclear. I wonder who prevented that? Oh wait it was climate activists. Funny that.
There was some tech stuff, new-deal-with-chinese-characteristics, and specifically a very climate conscious US president was elected, but everyone just let the other guy take office.
climate activists stopped nuclear
No. Dipshit appropriate environmental and residual anti nuclear activists, which were tangled up wuth a bunch of other movements, stopped it. Wouldve been nice though.
only technological solutions
I think i said ‘no changes (that wouldnt have improved our quality of life anyway)’, so things like modal shifts in transportation and moving to dense walkable cities or well cared for and/or utilized rural places
Things like solar and wind power (and yes nuclear, especially back then)
starting 50 years ago
Bitch have you not heard of jimmy fucking carter? Do you not remember the solar panels on the white house? Dude wasn’t perfect, but he proposed both renewables and nuclear power, and i assume knew what the hell he was talking about (given his education). It would have taken some time, but if we had started then, i think we’d be in a pretty good place. I dont know much about the situation on the periphery, but i assume the USSR would have matched the americans if only for the sake of appearances.
whataboutism, absurd bullshit
Okay you dont seem like a serious person; i wish you luck at the fracktory.
I don’t use the term whataboutism in my post anywhere. So I don’t know who you are quoting.
The not serious person here is you, saying we are all going to die anyway instead of encouraging people to do anything. I had to look this up as I don’t know anything about Carter, but it turns out the panels he was installing are for hot water. They don’t generate electricity. This makes perfect sense as it took much longer than that to develop photovoltaics and get them ready for mass production. Even now modern photovoltaic panels are fairly inefficient devices.
We already have walk-able cities in much of Europe. It’s not a compete solution by itself, we still have cars. You are weirdly fixated on USA history when this is a global problem. It’s not all about the USA. Stop pretending it’s the only country that exists. India and China are the biggest polluters these days if I remember correctly, you should be focusing on them.
Edit: Carter was also aiming for 20% of energy in the US to be made renewably by 2020. That wouldn’t have been anywhere near enough to stop climate change.
Usa was a major turning point. Went worst direction, could have gone best. Not all i brought up.
for hot water
As opposed to the fairy dust and prayers they used before.
walkable cities in
Used to hear a lot of people i knew on that continemt talk about cities getting less walkable, more car.
was aiming for
Renewable. Does not include nuclear. Assuming he wanted some amount of that, given his degree in that. But if we had started, we could have accellerated in the right direction instead of the wrong one.
I can read fine. You can’t write. Your messages so far have been full of spelling errors, are hard to understand, and you can’t even quote properly. Come on now.
You act like I should know all about this Carter person, when they were in power long before I was born, in a country I don’t even live in. It’s daft. Most people on this site either wouldn’t have been born or would have been small when Carter was talking about this stuff. That happened in the 1970s. If it isn’t absolutely clear using renewables for everything in the 1970s wouldn’t have been practical. Nuclear would have been great, but it’s mainly environmentalists that put a stop to that, as they keep trying to do now. It seems most environmentalists and climate activists even now don’t want nuclear, even though it’s the obvious choice for certain applications like data centers and AI. The most staunch anti-nuclear people have always been environmentalists. Nuclear also wouldn’t have solved any of the problems caused by cars. It doesn’t even work without large grid storage or demand management, at least not using the reactor technology available back then. Those are things we are only just figuring out now for goodness sake. It could have at least replaced coal for baseload power, which is much better than nothing.
You can’t say in one breath that the planet is already doomed, and in the next say we should make major changes. It’s a contradiction. If people believe we are really doomed they aren’t even going to try. This should be relatively straight forward to understand. So if you want people to make a change then stop saying we are already dead.
This kind of talk isn’t really useful and is making the problem worse. Where are you getting all this from? You must have some good sources to make claims like this.
There wasn’t a time line 25 years ago where we could use only technological solutions as said technological solutions didn’t exist. Those have only been invented since then, many still haven’t been invented or are still being worked on now. Take batteries for example, it took us until the 2010s to manufacture enough lithium ion batteries with the right chemistry to even think about using them as grid storage. Said batteries still have limited lifespans and manufacturing them is costly to the environment and requires lithium which has a limited supply. We really need Sodium ion batteries but those are only ramping production now. Starting to switch over 50 years ago would have been even more impossible, not that we understood the problem fully 50 years ago. This is all revising history.
Fyi CO2 levels have been higher in the past than they are now. None of this is actually new, it’s just changing far faster than it would naturally. It’s the speed that’s the issue, not the actual magnitude of the change. It’s a case of changing things faster than nature takes to adapt. We are still technically in an ice age after all. Pollutants like microplastics and forever chemicals are the new thing, not greenhouse gasses. No one has any idea what that might lead to in the long term.
You feel insane because your suggesting things should have happened before they are actually possible. You are saying things that are extremely alarmist without giving evidence and without considering context.
Edit: There was one way to decarbonize earlier than 25 years ago or maybe before. It’s called Nuclear. I wonder who prevented that? Oh wait it was climate activists. Funny that.
There was some tech stuff, new-deal-with-chinese-characteristics, and specifically a very climate conscious US president was elected, but everyone just let the other guy take office.
No. Dipshit appropriate environmental and residual anti nuclear activists, which were tangled up wuth a bunch of other movements, stopped it. Wouldve been nice though.
I think i said ‘no changes (that wouldnt have improved our quality of life anyway)’, so things like modal shifts in transportation and moving to dense walkable cities or well cared for and/or utilized rural places
Things like solar and wind power (and yes nuclear, especially back then)
Bitch have you not heard of jimmy fucking carter? Do you not remember the solar panels on the white house? Dude wasn’t perfect, but he proposed both renewables and nuclear power, and i assume knew what the hell he was talking about (given his education). It would have taken some time, but if we had started then, i think we’d be in a pretty good place. I dont know much about the situation on the periphery, but i assume the USSR would have matched the americans if only for the sake of appearances.
Okay you dont seem like a serious person; i wish you luck at the fracktory.
I don’t use the term whataboutism in my post anywhere. So I don’t know who you are quoting.
The not serious person here is you, saying we are all going to die anyway instead of encouraging people to do anything. I had to look this up as I don’t know anything about Carter, but it turns out the panels he was installing are for hot water. They don’t generate electricity. This makes perfect sense as it took much longer than that to develop photovoltaics and get them ready for mass production. Even now modern photovoltaic panels are fairly inefficient devices.
We already have walk-able cities in much of Europe. It’s not a compete solution by itself, we still have cars. You are weirdly fixated on USA history when this is a global problem. It’s not all about the USA. Stop pretending it’s the only country that exists. India and China are the biggest polluters these days if I remember correctly, you should be focusing on them.
Edit: Carter was also aiming for 20% of energy in the US to be made renewably by 2020. That wouldn’t have been anywhere near enough to stop climate change.
Usa was a major turning point. Went worst direction, could have gone best. Not all i brought up.
As opposed to the fairy dust and prayers they used before.
Used to hear a lot of people i knew on that continemt talk about cities getting less walkable, more car.
Renewable. Does not include nuclear. Assuming he wanted some amount of that, given his degree in that. But if we had started, we could have accellerated in the right direction instead of the wrong one.
Okay you clearly can’t read.
I can read fine. You can’t write. Your messages so far have been full of spelling errors, are hard to understand, and you can’t even quote properly. Come on now.
You act like I should know all about this Carter person, when they were in power long before I was born, in a country I don’t even live in. It’s daft. Most people on this site either wouldn’t have been born or would have been small when Carter was talking about this stuff. That happened in the 1970s. If it isn’t absolutely clear using renewables for everything in the 1970s wouldn’t have been practical. Nuclear would have been great, but it’s mainly environmentalists that put a stop to that, as they keep trying to do now. It seems most environmentalists and climate activists even now don’t want nuclear, even though it’s the obvious choice for certain applications like data centers and AI. The most staunch anti-nuclear people have always been environmentalists. Nuclear also wouldn’t have solved any of the problems caused by cars. It doesn’t even work without large grid storage or demand management, at least not using the reactor technology available back then. Those are things we are only just figuring out now for goodness sake. It could have at least replaced coal for baseload power, which is much better than nothing.
You can’t say in one breath that the planet is already doomed, and in the next say we should make major changes. It’s a contradiction. If people believe we are really doomed they aren’t even going to try. This should be relatively straight forward to understand. So if you want people to make a change then stop saying we are already dead.
Read what i wrote. Or don’t, if you can’t.