|
Half the posts itt right now are literally the This Is Fine comic.
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
An increase of 3-5 C is the probable destruction of a wide swath of civilization, mass starvation, and further uncontrollable warming due to positive feedbacks from there no longer being ice/snow year round on most of the globe. Where we'd actually settle is anyone's guess. But yeah, evolution isn't going to be able to keep up to where 3+ degrees of warming is at all manageable for the vast majority of biota.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
It's certainly possible that the extremely fast rise in temperature could cause a mass extinction since we don't really have knowledge of a previous event like this. On the other hand most animals and plants have lived through large swings in temperature before and it's not because they "evolved" in the time span of a few hundred thousand years, more that their ranges shrunk or expanded. Also as like humanity outside of marginal areas (low rainfall Equatorial areas) is probably not going to suffer mass starvation via climate change alone unless there's a general and severe breakdown in society. Crying about the extinction of life or the shitheads talking about suicide aren't helpful at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:It's certainly possible that the extremely fast rise in temperature could cause a mass extinction since we don't really have knowledge of a previous event like this. On the other hand most animals and plants have lived through large swings in temperature before and it's not because they "evolved" in the time span of a few hundred thousand years, more that their ranges shrunk or expanded. Also as like humanity outside of marginal areas (low rainfall Equatorial areas) is probably not going to suffer mass starvation via climate change alone unless there's a general and severe breakdown in society. Life isn't going to go extinct, but the destruction of oceans + the devastation of agriculture anywhere within the Tropics at >3 degrees of warming almost certainly will lead to mass starvation. Starvation will lead to mass migration, which will lead to greater competition over resources and war. Also, <100 years is not enough time for most species to adapt either genetically via evolution or behaviorally (things like migration patterns, etc.). We're already in the middle of a mass extinction event, and it will only intensify as warming trends get worse. The outlook is bleak if we're being realistic. This doesn't mean "give up all hope" or kill yourself, it's just that even conservative estimates are pointing toward a severely degraded Earth. Being hysterical isn't helpful, but neither is sticking your head in the sand. Aves Maria! fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Sep 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Its been a serious topic of discussion and research for some time now, which makes me very sad. In 2012 at the, International conference on Cloud Condensation and Precipitation, there was a session that discussed this issue. It was pretty informal. But it is getting serious attention. General consensus is that it is a terrible terrible terrible idea, possibly better than the alternative. It's been awhile since I've been involved in the field, but at the time the principle concern of aerosol geoengineering was extreme drought in India and China, which I guess is ok since no one really lives there. Also I remember there being some speculation of a small but nonzero chance that it could destroy the ozone layer. Plus, as you mentioned, the vast amounts of unknown unknowns.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Geoengineering ideas may be ridiculous and dangerous proposals towards preventing the end of global human civilisation due to catastrophic climate change, but if anyone in this thread or anywhere else things that a political solution is possible now, or that one will ever be possible at any point in time, they are either fooling themselves or a complete idiot. There is literally one political solution that can end climate change and it is as follows: Someone is appointed to be the god-emperor of humanity and everyone is instantly on board with every decision they make, and that person happens to give a poo poo about saving the planet. That's the only political solution. I'd rather roll the dice on whatever possibly disastrous geoengineering idea we come up with in the next couple decades, because it will quite literally be the only shot we have at fixing the climate. Human life isn't going to go extinct regardless, the human animal is individually too intelligent for that to happen under almost any circumstance, but the idea that global civilisation as it is today can without any doubt survive the results of climate change in the next century is pretty laughable. What exactly do we expect to happen when the people of India and Pakistan become so desperate as to start a resource war with each other or any other nation that might hold the key to their survival? That they're really going to give a poo poo between choosing to die to unstoppable and unquenchable thirst and starvation or to nuclear hellfire? And what of us, the wealthy people of the world, are we going to be able to do what it takes to ensure our own survival? Are we going to just close ourselves off to the suffering of billions of people all around the world and convince ourselves that they don't exist? Are we going to accept our greatly reduced quality of life, resist the temptation to elect an angry facist to blame all our problems on someone else and start going to war with other countries in an attempt to gain the resources needed to satiate the desires of our own countrymen? What exactly is the path that an optimist can take here, because short of covering your eyes and ears and lying to yourself about how everything is going to turn out fine I'm not seeing many options here. ChairMaster fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Sep 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Geoengineering ideas may be ridiculous and dangerous proposals towards preventing the end of global human civilisation due to catastrophic climate change, but if anyone in this thread or anywhere else things that a political solution is possible now, or that one will ever be possible at any point in time, they are either fooling themselves or a complete idiot. On that note, you'll be glad to hear that the House of Representatives is finally doing something about the revelation that Exxon knew about global warming all along. (You will be unsurprised to find out what that "something" is.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dabs posted:Life isn't going to go extinct, but the destruction of oceans + the devastation of agriculture anywhere within the Tropics at >3 degrees of warming almost certainly will lead to mass starvation. Starvation will lead to mass migration, which will lead to greater competition over resources and war. Also, <100 years is not enough time for most species to adapt either genetically via evolution or behaviorally (things like migration patterns, etc.). We're already in the middle of a mass extinction event, and it will only intensify as warming trends get worse. The outlook is bleak if we're being realistic. This doesn't mean "give up all hope" or kill yourself, it's just that even conservative estimates are pointing toward a severely degraded Earth. There isn't really any scientific or logical basis for this civilization collapse stuff in the sense that it's certainly going to occur.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:There isn't really any scientific or logical basis for this civilization collapse stuff in the sense that it's certainly going to occur. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:Also as like humanity outside of marginal areas (low rainfall Equatorial areas) is probably not going to suffer mass starvation via climate change alone unless there's a general and severe breakdown in society. Famine is absolutely an issue that poorer parts of the world are likely to face, even with relatively conservative levels of warming. The problem isn't an absolute loss of farmland so much as a shift in fertile territory that occurs more quickly than governments and economies can adapt. There are plenty of areas in the world where a loss of local food production would be devastating, even if global production remains unchanged over the long term.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
To be fair, the specific government involved murdering a bunch of people in the streets had more to do with this outcome than the upset farmers seeking reform getting murdered.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Famine is absolutely an issue that poorer parts of the world are likely to face, even with relatively conservative levels of warming. The problem isn't an absolute loss of farmland so much as a shift in fertile territory that occurs more quickly than governments and economies can adapt. There are plenty of areas in the world where a loss of local food production would be devastating, even if global production remains unchanged over the long term. Yes, I'm not necessarily disagreeing that that can or will happen. However modern agriculture systems have decades to adapt and it could just as easily happen that even places like India manage to find some sort food stability. The collapse of modern civilization or mass starvation is far from a certainty even isolating the third world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:Yes, I'm not necessarily disagreeing that that can or will happen. However modern agriculture systems have decades to adapt and it could just as easily happen that even places like India manage to find some sort food stability. The collapse of modern civilization or mass starvation is far from a certainty even isolating the third world. Well the population of Africa is set to triple over the next 80 years and a lot of agricultural land there will become unusable. Sooo.... either a lot of African countries become wealthy enough to buy food from someone else or a lot more people will be drowning in the Med.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Anos posted:Well the population of Africa is set to triple over the next 80 years and a lot of agricultural land there will become unusable. Sooo.... either a lot of African countries become wealthy enough to buy food from someone else or a lot more people will be drowning in the Med. Or argicultural methods and diets will have to change
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Or argicultural methods and diets will have to change That's the part about economies and governments failing to keep up, though.   It's extremely optimistic to assume that poor areas that already have relatively low food security will be able to adapt without serious social consequences.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:To be fair, the specific government involved murdering a bunch of people in the streets had more to do with this outcome than the upset farmers seeking reform getting murdered. The most severe drought ever recorded i syria occured betwern 2007 to 2010, right before the civil war started. Certainly a huge contributing factor but doesn't get much attention.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Or argicultural methods and diets will have to change Yeah I can't wait for someone to invent agriculture that works without water for all the destroyed aquifer regions. Also I'm sure human beings are going to wipe out any other animal species as soon as any food or political pressure happens so why are we talking about animals evolving to live in the new climate?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Yeah I can't wait for someone to invent agriculture that works without water for all the destroyed aquifer regions. Reduced water consumption will be a massive part of shifts in agriculture. Also likely shifting where we grow to follow the rain. Also, I don't think your understanding of climate change (and/or the food system) is too sound if you think we're going to eat the wild animals to extinction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
The trick will be to build heavily fortified nuclear desalination plants with similarly bunkered up facilities for preliminary extraction of uranium from the seawater before the coasts are constantly battered by hypercanes. The water pipelines and pump stations will have to be guarded against the riotous death throes of the proletariat but before long we'll be growing pineapples in Saskatchewan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Reduced water consumption will be a massive part of shifts in agriculture. Also likely shifting where we grow to follow the rain. ummm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_gazelle just sayin. While climate change might not have been the driver in this case if climate change does cause "food pressure," or reductions in the productivity of agricultural it will almost certainly drive extinction by encouraging the conversion of natural or semi-natural land to intensive agriculture. I don't know if that will actually bear out but even local food crises can often lead to local extirpations or extinctions, as has happened in South Sudan and Cambodia. Another reason your repeated insistence that population growth isn't a significant driver of climate change is so strange, the necessity of putting ever increasing acreages under production is a major source of emissions and there is no conceivable way of avoiding that necessity in high population growth scenarios (population growth is a major variable in all IPCC emission scenarios, btw).
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:The most severe drought ever recorded i syria occured betwern 2007 to 2010, right before the civil war started. Certainly a huge contributing factor but doesn't get much attention. The drought was a driving factor of the original protests. The government shooting said protestors was responsible for the much larger mass protests that followed, demanding government reform. The government massacres of those protestors and following crackdown sparked the civil war. Had the government not responded to upset people (regardless of what they wete upset about)by attempting to murder all dissent it seems unlikely Syria would be where it is today.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
Squalid posted:ummm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_gazelle just sayin. There's a vast difference between a species and all species. Besides, the idea that if human food systems have collapsed to where across the globe we are overeating wild species is absurd because human food systems species will certainly last longer than wild ones. We will GMO food crops and animals earlier and with more resources than for other non-food related species and ecosystems. My point isn't that population growth isn't a driver, it is. My point is population control is a worthless climate change policy. We need to make inroads towards a carbon neutral economy now, and even if you could half the birth rate, the resources used to do so would be better spent reducing per capita emissions. As I always have to say in this thread, don't mistake my argument as open ended optimism. I'm saying "we won't kill all the animals as long as we can GMO chicken", "Ag will continue in Africa in some form" and "civilization will survive even if there are mass famines of millions"
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Reduced water consumption will be a massive part of shifts in agriculture. Also likely shifting where we grow to follow the rain. Previous green revolution advances have lead to dramatic increases in groundwater mining. Magic waterless agriculture is magic. Trabisnikof posted:Also, I don't think your understanding of climate change (and/or the food system) is too sound if you think we're going to eat the wild animals to extinction. When Chernobyl was abandoned by humanity wolves and bears came back. But when india collapses you're going to see the last tigers and markhors wiped out. Nobody is going to maintain wildlife preserves when people are starving. Seriously, you think if we see 3-5C climate increase you think there's going to be a single elephant living in the wild? Bush meat is a real thing, but more than that, desperate people act like locusts and make sure that any other competitors for water and land are destroyed in short order.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Previous green revolution advances have lead to dramatic increases in groundwater mining. Magic waterless agriculture is magic. That's because we never really cared about water scarcity before. Do you really think we grow the most water efficient crops we can right now? quote:When Chernobyl was abandoned by humanity wolves and bears came back. But when india collapses you're going to see the last tigers and markhors wiped out. Nobody is going to maintain wildlife preserves when people are starving. I think your answer has two modes: 1. Humanity fails, and the elephants die before we can eat them 2. Humanity has some level of success and we don't eat all the animals and maybe all the elephants die I already accepted we're going to see more mass extinctions, just the idea we would both have wildlife left and also have a global food supply collapse seems out of order.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
I can't parse your first paragraph so I'm not exactly sure how to address your point but humans are today overeating many wild species and it is contributing to extinction. Human food systems don't have to collapse to increase extinction rates, a simple decline (or in the case of rising population, even stagnation or only modest increase) in production per hectare is going to necessitate an increase in total farming area, which will almost inevitably cause extinction. I believe predictions for the effect of global warming on agricultural productivity are mixed so hopefully there won't be significant declines in productivity. On population control, do you think China's one-child policy had any effect on the current emissions total? Yes, we need to cut emissions now, but we also need to reduce future emissions. You have pitched a false dichotomy, a society can both work developing a carbon neutral economy AND reducing population growth, in fact all evidence suggests these are synergistic goals. Note I'm not really advocating any specific policy. If you check my post history my first few post itt are telling someone who was calling for killing all the blecks that they were an idiot. And if you were trying to make a point about policy why were your posts addressing the wisdom of individual choices?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
Population control only works at a policy level. Some nerd claiming they will totally never have kids, but only for climate and not for any other reason, does a hell of a lot less for the climate than even a freaking Prius. At least the Prius won't stop being a hybrid if they met the right person.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I already accepted we're going to see more mass extinctions, just the idea we would both have wildlife left and also have a global food supply collapse seems out of order. I don't understand, is your argument that since some remaining species will exist in the wild that I'm somehow technically wrong? Of course there will be species alive in the wild. It will just be a dramatically reduced number of them, almost entirely made up of hardy species that are good at hiding or living in very hostile climates. Some species survived every great extinction in the history of this planet, so yeah to be clear I don't think we're going to beat the meteor or the megavolcano. We could still pull off a tie, though...
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Population control only works at a policy level. Some nerd claiming they will totally never have kids, but only for climate and not for any other reason, does a hell of a lot less for the climate than even a freaking Prius. You have to invent strawmen to support your argument -- who is claiming that "they will totally never have kids, but only for climate and not for any other reason"? Even if that were the case, why would not having children exclusively for the benefit of the climate be worse than doing so while also having other reasons? In my previous response to your similar claim, I stated that the decision to have a child when you could opt not to causes a 50% increase in the pollution that you will be responsible for over your lifetime. Since you did not respond to my multi-paragraph rebuttal, I presume that you do not object to this statement. How is a choice that increases a person's lifetime pollution output by 50% (per child) to be justified by someone who claims to care about the environment? Opting out of having children is not an isolated phenomenon that occurs solely in "some nerd", but across the world's population; when people and governments encourage childbirth or belittle people who have made the reasoned decision not to have children (whether that decision is exclusively for the climate or otherwise), this is actively damaging to the environment. What is your interest in encouraging people to have children?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:You have to invent strawmen to support your argument -- who is claiming that "they will totally never have kids, but only for climate and not for any other reason"? Even if that were the case, why would not having children exclusively for the benefit of the climate be worse than doing so while also having other reasons? Because if someone isn't having kids for non-climate reasons then 0 emissions have been avoided. The idea that not having kids "helps" the climate only works if you stop having kids because of the climate that you would have had otherwise. If I choose not to have kids for economic and climate reasons, how is that any different than a coal company saying they're preventing emissions by not building a new plant for economic and climate reasons? Does it work if they have less kids? What about only 2 kids instead of 8? Does that couple "help" more than a couple who has 0 instead of 1?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
Denial of human culpability for our deleterious impact on our biosphere and hand-waving it away with magical technobabble solutions is, honestly, no better than climate denialism and in some ways more offensive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
Rime posted:Denial of human culpability for our deleterious impact on our biosphere and hand-waving it away with magical technobabble solutions is, honestly, no better than climate denialism and in some ways more offensive. I agree which is why I find it so frustrating when people or corporations claim they're being helpful by not doing harmful things they weren't going to do in the first place. It's like Trump's claims he was such a nice guy for not making gross attacks. We have so much at risk and so much potential harm we can meaningfully mitigate right now we can't risk people assuming inaction is helpful. Edit: I just shudder at the idea that someone (not anyone in this thread particularly or anything) would say "the climate? Oh I'm doing my part, I use condoms!" Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Sep 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Geoengineering ideas may be ridiculous and dangerous proposals towards preventing the end of global human civilisation due to catastrophic climate change, but if anyone in this thread or anywhere else things that a political solution is possible now, or that one will ever be possible at any point in time, they are either fooling themselves or a complete idiot. There is literally one political solution that can end climate change and it is as follows: It's a little sad to think that a benevolent dictator would handle climate change more effectively than a collection of democratic nations. However an international political solution will be possible in the future, once the effects of climate change become undeniably harmful. The tragedy of course is that sort of political agreement will come too late to prevent a dangerous amount of warming. On the proactive side of things, my own limited involvement in climate advocacy was participating in a carbon tax lobby group: Citizens’ Climate Lobby I believed that in the context of the US a carbon tax is the best solution; local initiatives may make people feel good about themselves and their community but an overall increase on the price of carbon is what will get results. The problem with this kind of top down legislative approach is that Congress and the Senate are a brick wall, and will be for the foreseeable future. There's not much hope for a federal legislative solution in the US for at least the next 10 years (congressional gerrymandering has seen to that). I still think it's a good idea, but it's undeniable that Obama's Clean Power Plan will be more effective at reducing emissions (assuming it's not gutted by congress/the Supreme Court/an orange fascist).
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
It would sure be convenient if the climatic disruption caused by the dumping of 1.5 trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere could be reversed without consequence by dumping a million tons of SO2 into the atmosphere every few years and doing a handful of other simplistic geoengineering things. It would be really convenient.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Because if someone isn't having kids for non-climate reasons then 0 emissions have been avoided. The idea that not having kids "helps" the climate only works if you stop having kids because of the climate that you would have had otherwise. Read my post again. Here, I'll help: Placid Marmot posted:Even if that were the case, why would not having children exclusively for the benefit of the climate be worse than doing so while also having other reasons? And even if someone were not having children for a non-climate reason, anyone who encourages them to instead have children (see Australia and Italy, among others) is increasing their impact on the environment. Parents-to-be who don't know about the damage caused by having children (if, for example, ignorant people have told them otherwise or tried to hush others), then they are denied the option to not have children for the sake of the environment. You still have not explained your investment in other people having children when they have good reason not to. Trabisnikof posted:Does it work if they have less kids? What about only 2 kids instead of 8? Does that couple "help" more than a couple who has 0 instead of 1? I think I've found the problem -- maybe you object to the argument because you don't understand it. I'll try to make this really simple for you. An average person will produce X environmental damage per year, for the remainder of their lifetime (where X represents greenhouse gas emissions, air, ground and water pollutants, resource depletion, erosion and desertification, plus any others you can think of). When that person dies, some day in the future (we'll say in 50 years to put a number in the equation), let's call the total amount of environmental damage inflicted by all people between now and then Y. The environmental damage caused by the person in question between now and that day will be 50X. If, between now and then, that person decides not to have a child, Y will not change. If that person decides to have a child today, we would expect the child to produce the same average amount of environmental damage per year as the parents. Therefore, on that same day in the future when the person dies, rather than the total amount of environmental damage inflicted by all people between now and then being Y, it will be Y+50X. (I have assumed a zero-length pregnancy for round numbers.) If a couple has two children rather than zero, then, using the same parameters as above, the total environmental damage after fifty years will be +100X. If the couple goes on to have six more children (assuming one year between births [the first two were twins]), the total will be +379X. A couple does not "help" more by having 2 children rather than 8, but their cumulative decisions to have six more children will cause several lifetimes worth of environmental damge, just within their own remaining lifespan. If the couple discovered this after having the twins but still decided to have six more children, they would arguably be acting unethically. Fortunately for them, people like you would hide or play down the damage caused by every new mouth to feed, so they will probably never have that on their conscience.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Look it's like this. Imagine this horrible thread is the climate. See how we're totally making GBS threads it up with our posts about magic thinking, magic geoengineering, magic agriculture and magic policies? Imagine what this thread would look like if all our parents had been smart enough to not have our sorry asses. This thread would be beautiful and pristine. The polar bears would be living in this thread but your stupid parents decided to pop out another squealing climate/thread destroyer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
I'm not arguing if having kids is a good thing or not. Even within the framework that kids==bad, I'm arguing some specific things: 1. That not having kids isn't helping the climate anymore than me not drilling a new oil well is helping the climate. If you and your partner weren't able and willing to have kids before your climate pledge, the it is a meaningless show of support that doesn't reduce your personal emissions. 2. Even if you are completely above board in the set-asides and there actually is the potential for mitigation of future emissions, outside of a policy framework individual set asides (e.g. no kids til carbon-free or a/e) can be easily overwhelmed by other factors, e.g the horny teens. To extend the oil example, it doesn't matter if I'm not drilling more wells if my neighbors are instead. 3. Other kinds of individual actions, such as pro-climate capital purchases can reduce emissions faster and for more individual (the entire family). Also the models of future emissions for capital are vastly more certain than the models for offspring. The carbon economy is changing so we can't be sure if future emissions will be as significant as emissions now. 4. Finally, effort spent to move population control into the policy realm where it could see meaningful impacts is so challenging that we'd be better spent using those resources elsewhere. We've got a lot of things to tackle and I'd rather we spend effort now reforming *~*car culture*~* rather than *~*child culture*~*
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
What worldwide car culture edicts are you thinking of implementing emperor trabinskopf
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:What worldwide car culture edicts are you thinking of implementing emperor trabinskopf Well, I was saving this for after my coronation but: * obviously the new carbon tax im using to fund my palace will hit fossil fuel vehicles hard * aggressive phase in rules for electric passenger vehicles by states and large business vehicles, they can handle the shift the fastest * tax or nationalize the existing fuel economy so we can massively build out electric charging, CNG and hydrogen stations. * as these alternatives get built out, start aggressive phase outs of diesel and gasoline vehicles * as batteries continue to drop in price phase out LNG as possible * massively invest in mass transit and transportation alternative * I'd be open to mandating remote work in certain industries * use my emperor powers to hire a bunch of the best artists of our time to make personal car ownership seem dirty and uncool A bunch more transportation sector edicts, but I focused on answering your question about car culture Obviously my governors for each former county will need to implement specific plans, and some have more changes required, but this is just a preview anyway 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:* use my emperor powers to hire a bunch of the best artists of our time to make personal car ownership seem dirty and uncool It sure as hell isn't happening in my lifetime, but I'd love to see personal car ownership (at least for transportation on public roads) stigmatized in the same way as smoking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
It's not as if the resources that your potential children would've consumed won't get consumed just because you decided to not have children. The resources will just get consumed some other way and probably at the same rate either way. Individual asceticism has zero impact on the rate at which climate change and resource depletion progresses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 21:53
|
|