ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

rojimboo wrote:

Why would you have to live in a cave to decarbonise?

I wouldn't, thanks to the developments from 1850 and onward. Apparently you wanna profit off of those developments and at the same time blame them. Weird logic.

"

rojimboo wrote:

If only you could decouple GDP growth and CO2 emissions, hmmmm.

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

rojimboo wrote:

If only you could decouple GDP growth and CO2 emissions, hmmmm.

You couldn't in 1850 and onward. That's the point.

"

rojimboo wrote:

I have no idea what your point is. Perhaps use more words, you know, the stuff of coherent sentences?

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

rojimboo wrote:

I have no idea what your point is. Perhaps use more words, you know, the stuff of coherent sentences?

You're blaming the US for their cumulative carbon emissions since the 1850s as the key factor for rapid climate change. I said that blaming them makes no sense unless you'd be fine with living at the standard of the 1850s. You said no we could decarbonise and keep our current standards of living (which is debatable but I can see that with a couple more decades of technological progress so ultimately I agree). Now my point is that we can only decarbonise and keep our current standard of living because of the technological progress and prosperity we achieved from 1850s onward, which would've been impossible without the industrial revolution and the pollution that came with it.

There's no current level of progress and prosperity without the pollution which came beforehand. If you went back to the 1850s and told the people to stop the industrial revolution and go green instead, they literally wouldn't be able to as they have neither the knowledge nor the means to produce solar panels, wind turbines, hydroelectric dams etc. at an industrial level. So their only two choices would be to either stay at their current level of progress or to industrialize and pollute to achieve enough progress to some day go green. I'm glad we went with the latter but maybe you disagree.

"

rojimboo wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

rojimboo wrote:

I have no idea what your point is. Perhaps use more words, you know, the stuff of coherent sentences?

You're blaming the US for their cumulative carbon emissions since the 1850s as the key factor for rapid climate change. I said that blaming them makes no sense unless you'd be fine with living at the standard of the 1850s. You said no we could decarbonise and keep our current standards of living (which is debatable but I can see that with a couple more decades of technological progress so ultimately I agree). Now my point is that we can only decarbonise and keep our current standard of living because of the technological progress and prosperity we achieved from 1850s onward, which would've been impossible without the industrial revolution and the pollution that came with it.

There's no current level of progress and prosperity without the pollution which came beforehand. If you went back to the 1850s and told the people to stop the industrial revolution and go green instead, they literally wouldn't be able to as they have neither the knowledge nor the means to produce solar panels, wind turbines, hydroelectric dams etc. at an industrial level. So their only two choices would be to either stay at their current level of progress or to industrialize and pollute to achieve enough progress to some day go green. I'm glad we went with the latter but maybe you disagree.

Absolutely speculative hogwash. Who says in this alternate universe that we couldn't have achieved greener energy earlier had we known how devastating fossil fuel use is?

That doesn't even matter slightly, since we cannot change the past to my knowledge. Your argument is literally academic, except not the good kind.

What matters now is what governments and people do now. The US is horrifically behind the curve, and Trump is actively destroying climate science on top of that.

"Science is a democrat thing" right?

At least let them do their jobs, and stop subsidising the oil industry to destroy the climate, the only one we have.

"

rojimboo wrote:

Absolutely speculative hogwash. Who says in this alternate universe that we couldn't have achieved greener energy earlier had we known how devastating fossil fuel use is?

"

rojimboo wrote:

That doesn't even matter slightly, since we cannot change the past to my knowledge.

"

rojimboo wrote:

What matters now is what governments and people do now.

"

rojimboo wrote:

"Science is a democrat thing" right?

"

rojimboo wrote:

At least let them do their jobs, and stop subsidising the oil industry to destroy the climate, the only one we have.

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

rojimboo wrote:

"Science is a democrat thing" right?

Only fake science like gender studies.

"

"

rojimboo wrote:

At least let them do their jobs, and stop subsidising the oil industry to destroy the climate, the only one we have.

Removing subsidies wouldn't do much.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25467

"

The authors found that removing all fossil-fuel subsidies would have a limited impact on global energy demand by 2030 (a reduction of about 1–4%). In addition, the share of energy from renewable sources would rise by less than 2%, and global CO2 emissions would fall by only 1–4% (under both low and high oil prices). Consequently, in most regions, the CO2 reduction from subsidy reform would fall far short of what is needed to meet the Paris climate pledges (Fig. 1). The exceptions are regions such as Russia, the Middle East and North Africa, where subsidies are heavily concentrated and pledges are less ambitious.

A study2 in 2017 estimated that if fossil-fuel subsidies had been defined more broadly to reflect undercharging for environmental costs and general taxes, as well as production costs, these subsidies would have totalled $5.3 trillion in 2015 (6.5% of global gross domestic product). Furthermore, the study suggested that if prices had fully accounted for production costs, global and domestic environmental impacts and general taxes in 2013, global CO2 emissions would have been 21% lower than they were, air-pollution deaths associated with fossil fuels would have been 55% lower, and government revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product would have been 4% higher.

"

rojimboo wrote:

THat's not what Trump said.

"

rojimboo wrote:

How on earth did you stumble onto a Nature paper?

"

rojimboo wrote:

paper stuff