Of course, the fossil fuel industry's idea of carrying on business as usual offset by carbon capture is a total delusion.
Just cut all the other sources of carbon emission that can be replaced, like cars with batteries and hydroelectric plants for electricity.
Moreover, some kind of biodiesel may be the solution for "zero" emission airplanes, because liquid fuels are just very good for that application.
Yep, solutions involving austerity are a non-starter. In particular if you have no plan to help the third world develop beyond it's current state they will never cooperate with your ideology.
> reverse the damage wreaked over the past century.
We also accomplished quite a bit and cleaned and improved a lot of land over the last century.
> the fossil fuel industry's idea of carrying on business as usual
The business and all users of the product have changed significantly over the past several decades. New forms of energy are being developed and earnestly deployed. Progress is always slow. It's unlikely we will be finished in our lifetimes, but that's hardly any reason to abandon hope.
Developed countries should help developing countries leapfrog the fossil fuel stage. They should subsidize a massive buildout of solar, wind, geothermal, batteries, and some nuclear and hydro. Standing around pointing fingers doesn't help anyone.
> your ideology.
Not everything you disagree with is an "ideology".
> We also accomplished quite a bit and cleaned and improved a lot of land over the last century.
We also ruined and destroyed a lot of land over the last century. I love economic progress, modern comforts, and modern medicine. But let's honestly acknowledge it has had downsides.
Yes and food should be free. Why is this not happening then?
> Standing around pointing fingers doesn't help anyone.
Standing around and promulgating unworkable ideas is no better. This is a forum. We are here to discuss. If you want to "help anyone" you are in entirely the wrong place.
> Not everything you disagree with is an "ideology".
We can agree about the problems. The solutions are almost always ideological. My opposition is rooted in a different ideology. There's nothing wrong with this; however, trying to convince people to hamstring themselves for the sake of my ideas is likely to fail.
For what I hope are obvious reasons. I'm thinking of ways to actually solve the problem with realistic strategies. I tend to do this whenever the "climate doom and gloom" set come out of the woodwork and broadcast their hopeless message in a backwards effort to "look cool." The deep irony, of course, is they all do this from the developed world and probably have never been to the places I'm thinking of.
> We also ruined and destroyed a lot of land over the last century.
Obviously. There's no point in examining this outside of questioning "was it worth it?" To which I've clearly answered "yes, and I think you're a bit deluded if you insist otherwise."
Why should food be free? I didn't say that. However, aid for developing countries has been a thing for quite a while now. Why can't it be to promote clean energy?
Why isn't it happening? I assume politics and "ideology". Like for real this time.
> The solutions are almost always ideological
I still don't know what "ideological" means honestly. It sounds like you mean "pinko communist nonsense I don't agree with" which isn't a terribly rigorous definition.
> I'm thinking of ways to actually solve the problem with realistic strategies
Develop clean energy technology. Penalize carbon-emitting technology to incentivize adoption of clean tech. Subsidize clean energy technology for poorer countries. Unless "realistic" means "won't cost me a single penny personally", this is pretty damn realistic. Climate change is going to be expensive one way or another so let's do it the way that will minimize human suffering.
I'm reminded of a classic @dril tweet:
> drunk driving may kill a lot of people, but it also helps a lot of people get to work on time, so, it;s impossible to say if its bad or not,
It's bad. Even if they get to work they're drunk which is almost certainly not part of their working contract because nothing good can come from that.
Next time you see a refrigerated medication being delivered why don't you try to stop it because they're using petroleum. Or.. do you have no problem deciding if that's "good or not?"
> In the limit, then, "there is no hope" anyway since it's a natural cycle
If it was merely a natural cycle we'd have much better odds of adapting because we'd have thousands of years.
> We either cope or we die, as a species
No doubt we'll need to adapt. Reducing carbon emissions and developing useful carbon capture improves the chances that large numbers of people don't die.