• NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s actually the only thing that’s going to save us. It’s not only rational, it’s the only logical conclusion one can come to from the overwhelming data on climate change. If you think burning fossil fuels is more important than having a habitable planet, then you’re not thinking clearly.

          • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Actually we survived without energy use for hundreds of thousands of years before electricity was invented. So, that’s kind of a ridiculous statement to even make.

            • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              No, we didn’t. Humans discovered fire a hell of a long time ago.

              And unless you’re willing to exterminate thousands for every one that lives, “go back to fire” isn’t theoretically possible either.

              • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                You know burning a fire isn’t the same as driving cars, planes, busses, heating houses with natural gas, oil, coal, etc right? You’re just being obtuse now, on purpose, and I don’t know why…

                • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  For your batshit stated goal of “zero emissions no matter what”, they absolutely are the same thing. A fire is emissions.

                  But again. Even theoretically going back to fire would only be possible if you exterminated the overwhelming majority of humanity.

                  • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    Zero emissions can be achieved with renewable energy sources. There are lots of them. Nothing bat shit crazy about that. You’ve bought in to some serious propaganda unfortunately. We have the technology at this very moment to switch over fully renewable sources. But we haven’t because of money.

                    It’s sad that this is considered a controversial point of view at all. Its been so highly politicized, for what, money, over the billions of lives we are going to lose in the coming decades?

                    That’s the real insanity here, not what I advocate for.

    • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      We’ll never reduce to zero, stop engaging in fantasy delusions. What can do is make realistic effort to curb the largest offenders, which ocean shipping isn’t a part of. If you think we’re going to go back to the age of sail and multi-year journeys for items to reach destinations then you’re high

      • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s not a fantasy, it’s literally the only thing that will save us. Scientists have been very very clear zero emissions is the only thing that will stop climate change. I live with one for God sakes. Don’t call me delusional. It’s the only rational thing to do, anything else is fucking crazy bcz it’s the difference between livable conditions here, and not. But don’t trust me, we’ll all see the consequences of our dumbest arguments in about a decade.