alt Hacker NewsThere hasn't been a question about this in a decade or more. There was no path, even theoretically, to stopping our CO2 emissions without dramatically lowering quality of life for maybe a couple billion people.
We won't slow climate change. We can build resilience to the effects, and we have good incentives to do so. But we'll keep burning fossil fuels for a very long time.
Replies
I was a kid in the early 90s and my school book mentioned climate change and need to change energy sources. This could have been, if not prevented, at least greatly mitigated. We have had plenty of time. But well, I guess that our species is not that intelligent after all. Too bad, maybe the next one will be better...
Quality of life will be dramatically lower for many because we did not take action
Maybe it will be a good incentive to rebuild our global infrastructure without having to go through a world war ?
fourth airport opening in the DC area this week, the news says
> We can build resilience to the effects
Oh yeah, would love to see the resilience that would have prevented the Nepalese disaster
There was an obvious path that the environmentalists mostly opposed. A decade is plenty of time for massive scale buildout of nuclear power. If we'd started that a decade ago we'd be in a good position now.