And, bluntly, if there is a hard cutoff point and we have to get to it within ten years, that's fundamentally impossible and straight up not going to happen Bernie couldn't do it either Only conquering the whole world and ruling it with an iron fist could do it
-
-
And since right now not pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere for the hell of it would be an improvement....
-
(That is, without exaggeration, the Trump administration's climate change policy: MOAR GHGs even when industry doesn't *want* to make more GHGs. Just as a matter of principle, they want to burn all the carbon they can find!)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The answer to the question "Wouldn't it be better for things to get temporarily bad for four more years under Trump so that it will galvanized a REAL leader to make REAL change later" is always no, but it's ESPECIALLY false for climate
-
It's like the situation with the pandemic and the virus' exponential growth What matters most is the first few weeks after the outbreak A mildly bad leader vs a very bad leader is the difference between a few hundred dead or a few hundred thousand
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yeah, 20 years ago, a little bit of improvement could have prevented the situation we're in right now. But nobody was interested in it then, and for 20 years the US has led the world in opposition to climate protection.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.