Oh, raising a child to be an armed socialist without being vegan or carfree? It’s an interesting idea, but I’d worry it’s rather difficult to teach a child ideals you don’t live by. If I lived in a place with no public transit or vegan food, I wouldn’t reproduce. I wouldn’t want to inflict that kind of environment on my child.
The point is that people wouldn’t HAVE to be vegan or carefree if it weren’t for the billionaires.
Imagine a kindergarten where every child has to start bringing their own crayons because the ones the teacher bought for everyone have all been broken or gone missing. Nearly all the students had been respectful of the crayons, with the exception of little Billy Dipshit, who likes to throw crayons on the ground and stomp on them. The teacher tried talking to Billy’s parents, but the last one who did got fired because the Dipshit family gave a lot of money to the Superintendent and to the campaigns of the various school board members.
We are subsidizing the pollution of billionaires and corporations because our leaders are too afraid to regulate them.
people wouldn’t HAVE to be vegan or carefree if it weren’t for the billionaires
Yes we would. We need net zero.
And when I say net zero, I don’t mean “cut emissions by half and then buy carbon offsets”, I mean we have to cease all fossil fuel usage, all animal agriculture, and then re-wild the land well enough to sequester the absolutely necessary emissions produced by our most crucial industrial processes.
No more gas cars. No more gas stoves. No more burping cows. Camping under the stars with a wood fire is cutting it fucking close.
The billionaires have already polluted enough that we may have passed the point of no return. I fucking hope we haven’t, and I’m not going over the line because Joe Smith can’t give up his fucking big macs. There are very few sacrifices, in terms of personal inconvenience or even loss of life, which are worth even a 1% chance of stopping climate collapse. If the Socialist Canadian Republic has given up our meat and the United States of Commiestan are still eating hamburgers, I would support an invasion to take away their meat. We can’t afford any sacrifices.
Nonsense, we’ll still emit carbon dioxide through unavoidable processes like breathing, which we’ll need to offset through rewilding. What I’m describing is what “net zero” was coined to refer to.
I want to go negative and suck carbon out of the air to fix the damage we’ve done.
Sorry if this is explaining something you’ve already heard, but net zero is a distinct concept that a significant percentage of humans agree with. Describing it as huddling around campfires might be counterproductive towards wider public support.
You’ve misunderstood. Huddling around campfires is wasteful and we shouldn’t do it. We need solar panels, trains, and vegan food instead.
Emissions can refer to all greenhouse gases or only to carbon dioxide (CO2).[1] Reaching net zero is necessary to stop further global warming.[2] It requires deep cuts in emissions, for example by shifting from fossil fuels to sustainable energy, improving energy efficiency and halting deforestation. A small remaining fraction of emissions can then be offset using carbon dioxide removal.
For example, some standards for carbon neutral certification allow a lot of carbon offsetting. But net zero standards require reducing emissions to more than 90% and then only offsetting the remaining 10% or less to fall in line with 1.5 °C targets.
We can cut 25% of emissions with renewable electricity to replace fossil fuels. 28% by banning gas cars and airplanes except in emergencies. Maybe around 5-8% by banning animal agriculture. A few percentage points out of residential and industrial by banning onsite emission sources such as gas stoves. And maybe after all that effort we can get emissions down to 10% of what they presently are, but we might still need to radically rethink our industrial processes.
Oh, raising a child to be an armed socialist without being vegan or carfree? It’s an interesting idea, but I’d worry it’s rather difficult to teach a child ideals you don’t live by. If I lived in a place with no public transit or vegan food, I wouldn’t reproduce. I wouldn’t want to inflict that kind of environment on my child.
The point is that people wouldn’t HAVE to be vegan or carefree if it weren’t for the billionaires.
Imagine a kindergarten where every child has to start bringing their own crayons because the ones the teacher bought for everyone have all been broken or gone missing. Nearly all the students had been respectful of the crayons, with the exception of little Billy Dipshit, who likes to throw crayons on the ground and stomp on them. The teacher tried talking to Billy’s parents, but the last one who did got fired because the Dipshit family gave a lot of money to the Superintendent and to the campaigns of the various school board members.
We are subsidizing the pollution of billionaires and corporations because our leaders are too afraid to regulate them.
Yes we would. We need net zero.
And when I say net zero, I don’t mean “cut emissions by half and then buy carbon offsets”, I mean we have to cease all fossil fuel usage, all animal agriculture, and then re-wild the land well enough to sequester the absolutely necessary emissions produced by our most crucial industrial processes.
No more gas cars. No more gas stoves. No more burping cows. Camping under the stars with a wood fire is cutting it fucking close.
The billionaires have already polluted enough that we may have passed the point of no return. I fucking hope we haven’t, and I’m not going over the line because Joe Smith can’t give up his fucking big macs. There are very few sacrifices, in terms of personal inconvenience or even loss of life, which are worth even a 1% chance of stopping climate collapse. If the Socialist Canadian Republic has given up our meat and the United States of Commiestan are still eating hamburgers, I would support an invasion to take away their meat. We can’t afford any sacrifices.
It sounds like you’re describing gross zero, not net zero.
Nonsense, we’ll still emit carbon dioxide through unavoidable processes like breathing, which we’ll need to offset through rewilding. What I’m describing is what “net zero” was coined to refer to.
I want to go negative and suck carbon out of the air to fix the damage we’ve done.
So you’re describing net negative, not net zero?
I guess I am. I didn’t bother drawing a distinction between the two because the difference is one atom.
Sorry if this is explaining something you’ve already heard, but net zero is a distinct concept that a significant percentage of humans agree with. Describing it as huddling around campfires might be counterproductive towards wider public support.
You’ve misunderstood. Huddling around campfires is wasteful and we shouldn’t do it. We need solar panels, trains, and vegan food instead.
We can cut 25% of emissions with renewable electricity to replace fossil fuels. 28% by banning gas cars and airplanes except in emergencies. Maybe around 5-8% by banning animal agriculture. A few percentage points out of residential and industrial by banning onsite emission sources such as gas stoves. And maybe after all that effort we can get emissions down to 10% of what they presently are, but we might still need to radically rethink our industrial processes.