68
The UN just said the quit part out loud (web.archive.org)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/collapse@lemmy.zip
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

In a strategic retreat in the fight against climate change, the United Nations has acknowledged that Earth has lost its chance to prevent some of the worst of global warming's harms

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 2 months ago (7 children)

Consider there is no opposition but physics. How would you do it? Please go into details.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Consider there is no opposition but physics.

    That makes it seem doable.

    First, I’d ban the use of all fossil fuels. Next, the use of chemicals (like pesticides and weed killers) which harm the environment. Forests could no longer be destroyed to create grazing land for animals. People would have to become completely vegetarian, or only eat meat very rarely. Fishing would need to be brought down to sustainable levels. Factories would be required to either completely reduce their damage to the atmosphere or shut down. Microplastics would need to be eliminated, which would affect countless things. Lastly, we’d focus on cleaning up messes we’ve already made.

    Basically, businesses, governments, and individuals would have to put environmental impact first every time a decision is made.

    I’m sure I missed a few things. I can’t go into detail as you asked, because I am not educated enough on any of these topics.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    I thought that your plan would be like this. If you could enforce the fossil fuel ban, than billions would have died within a year. Over a couple decades, some 95% of the current population would perish.

    But you don't even have to this, because it will happen naturally. Just a bit slower, though after a century or two the end result would be the same.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    As Huskerx said, your 'step one' would mean the death of a massive amount of people. We can't feed anywhere close to 8+ billion without using fossil fuels. Since we're talking about facing the truth to get to real solutions, we can't gloss over that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Electric vehicles exist. Of course they would be used instead. Remember, I was asked to “consider there is no opposition but physics.” That includes logistics. I’m not glossing anything over, I’m following the rules.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    I understood that to mean no political/societal opposition, not that we don't also have our current physical reality to factor in. Sure, in a scenario of unlimited resources we can wave a magic wand and pluck up anything we'd need that is physically possible. But in our real world there aren't sufficient electric vehicles to replace all the transport and agricultural ICE vehicles that are currently needed And our electricity grids aren't able to operate independently of fossil fuels to provide enough power, even to produce the missing EVs. If we shift to a permaculture system of growing food, we'd need 10x the amount of land on earth, without taking into account the quality of the land. And if we took all of the nitrogen that the earth naturally produces, we'd be 50% short of what we'd need for the current population. We really want to underplay how much fossil fuels do for us. So saying there are electric vehicles, therefore problem solved, without taking into consideration the actual real world logistics, seems like make believe to me. In which case, I'm not sure what the point of this exercise is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent