The problem is that we are talking too little about actually quantifying this. You make pretty bold statements that sound good, but that contain not much we can use to guide policy decisions. And that matters.
How much will we suffer? For how long? How much will the climate impacts cost, how much adaptation measures, how much will avoidance cost? In terms of money, human lives and living conditions. Who is impacted? We have to put numbers if we want to find an optimum solution.
Yes, technically it’s not really about the planet or the environment, or society. It is about finding a solution of an optimum between money spent and living conditions for the majority of people. I actually think we should start talking about it more from that angle.
We could go to almost zero emissions tomorrow but it would wreak absolute havoc and billions of people would die. We could go full zero carbon emissions in our energy grid, but it would cost an absolute shitton, which means the living conditions go down. More realistic is a mix of investments between avoidance and adaptation. And I don’t think there is any realistic chance without nuclear energy.
They turned them into combustion cars.
genau, besser wäre Atomkraftwerke immer Volllast laufen zu lassen und dann wenn zu viel Strom im Netz ist Wasserstoff zu produzieren. Hat auch den Vorteil, dass man einen Teil der Aktivierungsenergie über Abwärme abdecken kann. Wesentlich sinnvoller als Gaskraftwerke zu bauen die die meiste Zeit still stehen.
Ideologiegetriebener Wahnsinn
if a reddit user is called redditor, what’s a lemmy user called?
just make public universities cheaper, private sector will feel the competition and lower prices.
Because it costs money. It’s not just “jobs”, it’s actual time and effort that we can’t spend on other things, which ultimately increases prices and means fewer people can afford things. And while in the West that means maybe cutting back a little, in other regions it can mean a life in poverty and premature death.