I think this is going to be the future

It'll be expensive initially, but that will change with time

It was going to happen eventually. Both horrible countries. Although hopefully Iran's revolution is successful

Why are they dumb though? This study shows that the consumers can see through the ways companies try to get around it

It might just be me, but I genuinely like that opener.

I'm not advocating for moving the goalposts at all. We should attempt to push it down to 1.5 and then zero.

I'm not opposed to describing 2.5 degree + as catastrophic, I just think that describing 1.8 degree as catastrophic makes the rest of the scale meaningless.

I'd say 1.8 would cause "serious destabilization of society", 2.2 "massive destabilisation of society", 2.5 "catastrophic", 2.8 "cataclysmic", 3.2 "threatening breakup of society", 3.5 "apocalyptic", 3.8 "threatening extinction", 4.1 "hope that the Svalbard seed vault works after the survivors leave the bunkers", 4.4 "at least antarctica will be nice after we're gone".

If you just continuously describe things as "even more" whatever, you are going to have a very hard time explaining the real situation to the public.

It is catastrophic. But that leaves no room for the description of worse outcomes.

It is semantics, but semantics are important here. Displacing tens of millions of people is different to killing hundreds of millions - and that's the difference between serious impact and catastrophe. If we use the worst words for bad outcomes, what words do we use for the worst outcomes?

We need to be able to explain to people the difference between 3 degrees and 1.8 degrees. Because there is a massive difference between the impacts of those temperatures.

No it actually doesn't. As it is, we're heading for roughly +1.8 degrees. That's seriously damaging but not catastrophic.

But those predictions are assuming constant activism and constant efforts to implement renewables and fossil fuels. We need to work hard to meet those assumptions.

There is no contradiction. The real world is complicated, and some crimes are necessary.

That is also a possibility, but I think it's less likely to be honest. There have been a lot of times in history where corporations gain a lot of power, but they're pretty much always broken up and crushed after a while. The power of corporations tends to crumble very quickly when the government goes after them

Because politics and the economy are relevant.

The objective of government should be to improve the lives of their citizens. Instantly banning oil would not do that. So instead, we started investing into things that could replace oil.

Reality isn't simple. But complicated solutions are still solutions. And fossil fuels will be replaced.

Hah, no. We're going to be sensible about it. Right now coal is collapsing, oil is stagnating, gas is slightly growing, and renewables are beginning to accelerate through the roof.

You'll notice that's in order of CO2 emissions. Highest emissions = lowest growth.

So. We're just going to keep investing in renewables and nuclear. Coal will disappear first, that's already happening. Oil will follow quite quickly after. Nuclear and renewables will replace them, there won't be any energy cuts - after all the government will be in charge of all this and the economy is always their #1 priority.

Bans won't be necessary. Oil and coal are already more expensive than renewables - they're being outcompeted.

Gas will follow after that. It'll take a while, much longer than oil or coal, but it will happen.

Coal's use to make steel is already being phased out. We'll probably continue using oil, but only to make plastic. And actually there's already a lot of well-funded research being done on how to replace that, at least partially.

So don't worry - civilisation can do just fine without oil. A lot of people are working hard on it right now.

Once a crime gets small enough, it isn't prosecuted. It is criminal, but it's a fucking tiny crime. It's like taking pebbles from a beach, or littering.

Only problem is - everyone does it.

On the other hand: shell/BP/large companies aren't taking one pebble from a beach, they are taking the entire beach. Which is 100% prosecutable.

If that was true, renewables wouldn't be one of the biggest growth sectors.

They have influence, but they don't have control.

Just checking, wanting to make sure you're not seriously saying that climate change isn't an emergency? Please say I have misinterpreted this? Because almost all the data we have on the subject suggests it is an emergency that we need to do as much as we can to revert, to prevent millions (or even billions) of deaths.

By that logic, someone who chucks an empty can on the floor should get the same sentencing as someone that dumps a 100-ton trash heap in a public place

What's more, 1984 is no longer possible. Our access to information is too great for censorship to ever be effective to that extent.

Information manipulation is still possible, but Brave New World is a much more likely future dystopia, if we're deciding between them

Literally no-one disagrees with this.

Come on. It's true that republican governments are definitely worse for the environments, but not to that extent, and it's unnecessary to introduce such bipartisan politics to this subreddit.

Fuck yeah. Let's do this. Keep fighting, it's working

Similarly, Hitler really helped to eliminate antisemitism. Most of Europe was quite antisemitic (though not to... *that...*level) before the war. That changed very quickly afterwards

The specifics of causality were invented by humans. For example, we don't like the grandfather paradox, but a multiverse just ignores that problem.

Personally, I think that we assign too much value to our own human experience. In our own experience it is possible to exactly know the velocity and position of an object. In our own experience things are solid, not wavelike. In our own experience it is impossible for time to warp based on speed. And in our own experience it is impossible for cause not to follow effect.

See, the thing is, quantum physics and just relativity also introduces a heckton of things that humans would call logical paradoxes. These are actually real. How do we know what is a true paradox and what isn't? The universe doesn't care about our perceptions. Time travel could just create multiple realities. Moving at close to lightspeed already does similar things