• krashmo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    That’s not untrue but the problem with phrasing it that way is that people will interpret it to mean we can implement relatively unnoticed measures to mitigate climate change. That may have been true 50 years ago but it’s not anymore. Meaningful change will be very painful at this point and that’s exactly why it’s not going to happen until it’s literally impossible to ignore the problem. You would think we’re there already but humans are very good at maintaining delusional thinking.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Hardly; it’s largely a matter of how quickly we phase out fossil fuels. Wait longer, and you get to scrap equipment before the ends of its normal useful life instead of getting full use out of what you pay for.

      • krashmo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        We’ve already waited way too long. That’s the point. Talking about it like you are makes it sound like we haven’t missed our window for slow and methodical transitions but that part of the conversation happened in the 80s and we decided that path was for pussies. Now here we are in the “October hurricanes are flooding Tennessee” timeline. If that sounds like the right time to be discussing getting the most out of our remaining diesel engines then you’re not paying attention.

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yes, we’ve wanted too long for zero impact.

          We haven’t waited too long to still end up with a habitable planet. Failing to act now puts that at risk.