(fwiw I still believe climate change is an important issue, and that we should embrace all of these technologies)
Näytä tämä ketju
in january 2019 omar tweeted we had 12 years before irreversible climate catastrophe, which strangely seems to indicate the far left is *less* worried about this issue than they were. could explain the disinterest in fracking, nuclear, and geoengineering.https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1225902234833211395 …
The world is on fire.
I don’t know if my children will have a planet to live on in 20 years. If that doesn’t scare the hell out of you, I don’t know what will.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/02/07/antarctica-just-hit-65-degrees-its-warmest-temperature-ever-recorded/ …-
-
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Technically not incongruous statements - if catastrophe happens in 12, kids are still screwed in 20, yah?
-
why focus on 20 if the irreversible bit strikes in 12 — or now, a year later, 11. an almost 2x course correction, which i imagine will only make it even more difficult to persuade voters.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Several of them have made this claim. I think it's a clear tell they aren't serious about climate change in the slightest. It's fear mongering so they can pass a "Green New Deal", which is really just a front so they can pass leftist economic reform.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
This is a misunderstanding. 12 years refers to the time we have left to cut carbon emissions in half to stay within 1.5 C. The actual impacts of that will happen gradually over a longer period. 12 years isn't when the catastrophe happens, it's when we will know it's inevitable.
-
Fracking might hurt more than it helps due to poorly tracked methane leaks. Nuclear's cost curve is going the wrong direction, and is totally dominated by solar. Geoengineering needs a lot more research, but is unlikely to be de-risked in the time frame we need it.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
I think the reason for the disinterest is that this was never about climate change in the first place — it was a convenient, catchy narrative around which to build a secular religion (namely, that of progressive conservationism.)
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Not only disinterest, but open disdain for those technologies. Bernie wants to prohibit fracking - which has done more against climate change than any other half baked action in western civilizations. Anyone who doesn’t embrace those technologies isn’t serious about the issue.
-
We don't actually know whether fracking has been a net positive. It depends on the size of the methane leaks that accompany it, which are poorly tracked and understood. We know that methane in the atmosphere is increasing, but haven't conclusively determined the source yet.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
Näytä lisää vastauksia, myös mahdollisesti häiritsevää aineistoa sisältäviä
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.