Globalization isn't a requirement. In fact, it's completely destroying our planet and its habitability. But yeah, let's worry about the shipping lanes.
Yeah, alright, you have fun with the idea that people exchanging goods without murdering each other is what's destroying the planet. Terribly evil, globalization. Or that the collapse of shipping lanes wouldn't result in incredible human suffering.
It's called CO2 emissions, I'm sure you're aware of it. The suffering climate change is going to cause in the coming decades will dwarf anything we've ever seen, unless we see a sharp decrease in emissions to zero very very soon, ideally 20 years ago. But, the next best time to do it is right now.
Nothing you said is remotely relevant.
The core issue of CO2 emissions isn't "People now communicate, travel to, and trade with each other across the globe" but "Massive use of fossil fuels where they are not necessary due to corporate lobbying"
Cargo ships and planes combined emit ~5% of our CO2 output. The major offenders are elsewhere.
I'm not going to argue about this. We need to reduce our emissions to zero, that is not zero.
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
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.
That is not a rational goal by any stretch of the imagination.
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.
A planet without energy use cannot possibly be habitable.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
Globalization isn't a requirement. In fact, it's completely destroying our planet and its habitability. But yeah, let's worry about the shipping lanes.
Yeah, alright, you have fun with the idea that people exchanging goods without murdering each other is what's destroying the planet. Terribly evil, globalization. Or that the collapse of shipping lanes wouldn't result in incredible human suffering.
It's called CO2 emissions, I'm sure you're aware of it. The suffering climate change is going to cause in the coming decades will dwarf anything we've ever seen, unless we see a sharp decrease in emissions to zero very very soon, ideally 20 years ago. But, the next best time to do it is right now.
Nothing you said is remotely relevant.
The core issue of CO2 emissions isn't "People now communicate, travel to, and trade with each other across the globe" but "Massive use of fossil fuels where they are not necessary due to corporate lobbying"
Cargo ships and planes combined emit ~5% of our CO2 output. The major offenders are elsewhere.
I'm not going to argue about this. We need to reduce our emissions to zero, that is not zero.
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
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.
That is not a rational goal by any stretch of the imagination.
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.
A planet without energy use cannot possibly be habitable.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
What, literally zero and not net zero? That's anprim bullshit.
So, you exhale CO2 when you breath.
Draw whatever conclusions from that that you like.
Yeah, and trees also exhale oxygen. What's your point?
Get off the internet then.
You’re not going to argue because you literally can’t, your back is against the wall and the only thing you have left to cling to is “buh not zero!”
Go change the world somewhere else.
If you are concerned about CO2, why is allowing a bunch of shitheels to close down THE SHORTEST route for shipping in the area a step forward?