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.
There are emissions from the manufacturing process. There will be emissions from recycling, there will be emissions period. Zero emissions is not realistic.
Right, we should just accept the planet will become uninhabitable. That's your message right now. And that's the real insanity.
You say zero emissions is the goal, which great.... buuuut that doesn't happen in this system we call planet earth.
Hell, your corpse will off gas after you're dead, and if you get eaten before you rot, the animals that eat you will still off gas when you have been turned to shit, which gives off methane.
You say renewables are the path to NO emissions, but knowing how things are made, especially things that make modern life cushy has a CO2 emission amount amongst others, every bite you eat will have emissions.
The ONLY way to get zero emissions is to return to a pre-stone age level of tech.
Net zero is what you need to accept as the goal unless you have replictor tech (you know the device on star trek).
Really, you say that people are insane for not going to zero emissions, yet you keep racking up your contributions typing to people who have a better handle on the topic than you (seriously others in this thread have made more logical arguments than you and with better backing than I).
No one is saying to let the planet go to hell, but we understand the limitations.
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.
There are emissions from the manufacturing process. There will be emissions from recycling, there will be emissions period. Zero emissions is not realistic.
Right, we should just accept the planet will become uninhabitable. That's your message right now. And that's the real insanity.
You say zero emissions is the goal, which great.... buuuut that doesn't happen in this system we call planet earth.
Hell, your corpse will off gas after you're dead, and if you get eaten before you rot, the animals that eat you will still off gas when you have been turned to shit, which gives off methane.
You say renewables are the path to NO emissions, but knowing how things are made, especially things that make modern life cushy has a CO2 emission amount amongst others, every bite you eat will have emissions.
The ONLY way to get zero emissions is to return to a pre-stone age level of tech.
Net zero is what you need to accept as the goal unless you have replictor tech (you know the device on star trek).
Really, you say that people are insane for not going to zero emissions, yet you keep racking up your contributions typing to people who have a better handle on the topic than you (seriously others in this thread have made more logical arguments than you and with better backing than I).
No one is saying to let the planet go to hell, but we understand the limitations.