A dictator isn't good (though I don't particularly believe in democracy), but it is at least comforting that there's no getting away with it. I see every person who goes out of their way to sped lies, misinformation, and denialism. I see everybody who insists on having ten children and refuses to use a recycling bin because that's liberal shit. They don't have to believe me, but hey, eventually there's just what's gonna happen. Call it my own preemptive solace for collapse conditions.
Fuck people for wanting kids and control of their lives, right? The part that scares me is that you'd basically rather have a dictator (and we're not just gonna assume it's a benevolent one) than have the environment get worse than it is. And it will get worse, but that doesn't mean it won't shift. You see people you think are being vile human beings for either not dropping everything that might be making the problem worse, or people who are following the incentives given them, and think 'fuck those guys for not helping'. I see the people who are trying to help but are just one person and think 'why the fuck does this gotta affect them'. Almost no one is evil. Almost everything is broken.
FURTHERMORE on this point though, what makes you think that the dictator would fulfill the promises of fixing things? Ever? Once things are better, their whole platform for power is lost. Power corrupts. There's even been studies that find that you lose the empathy and ability to care about other people when you feel powerful and individualistic. You don't need other people anymore, after all.
On a similar note, trees love the current state of things. When they aren't being cut down. More CO2 means easier time growing.
Most of the CO2 is out of their reach and has to be destroyed by sunlight. This also only applies to C3 plants.
Which is most of them. Also, while some CO2 gets real high in the atmosphere, sure, it's heavier than air in general, it sinks.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v288/n5789/abs/288347a0.htmlhttps://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100628124327AAGYWzyAlso, yes, you are correct, it only applies to C3 plants, aka the vast majority of them that aren't crops.
Wait, so what's wrong with fracking? Releases methane into the air, can go wrong if proper protocols aren't taken, it can cause small earthquakes (which to me seems like it's just releasing the existing tension, since the reason it happens is essentially lubrication).
Poisons groundwater, don't know how the hell you're just dismissing earthquakes, is an obvious diversion from actual sustainability just like "clean coal", nobody actually knows the health effects of fracking fluid because it's proprietary. Seriously, you get all up in arms about human rights abuses and you don't think destabilizing faultlines counts? All faults have existing tension. They're faults. They always have tension. But a dead fault can go for a very long time without causing trouble, and now in Oklahoma we've gone and woken them up. Or rather, irresponsible fucking companies have. Bet they wouldn't be so eager if they had to pay earthquake damages from now until heat death.
So, the degree to which it poisons groundwater, in the few fracking cases where they aren't drilling in rock below the groundwater table, the studies about how much that affects people in the concentrations you'd find it at? Doesn't do shit. Do you know what chemicals are used in fracking? An anti-bacterial and a friction reducer, and a whole lot of water. Used to be done with actual chemical gels which just happened to be really expensive. But they would have been used more as we ran out.
And it only destabilizes a faultline if you're looking at it like the faultline wasn't going to end up sliding at some point anyway. It allows it to slide. It doesn't add energy to the equation. It makes it less likely to build up tension for a HUGE earthquake that would actually be devastating, which would eventually come anyway. I dunno about a
4.6 magnitude earthquake being more than a nuisance (yes I know people's stuff break and it's dangerous for old people). I mean, yeah, they should probably pay damages when it happens, but it ain't common.
I'm talking about the danger of innovation here, what some people refer to as "Moloch". If we could attain power by child sacrifice, even if we didn't necessarily agree with child sacrifice, we would. We would practically be forced to if anybody did agree with child sacrifice, in order to keep up with them. That is the danger of innovation.
See, that's the advantage of coordination mechanisms. We can also use military force, instead. If it generated literally terrawatts of power per child, yes, we would have to to compete. But if it was just marginally better, The God of Cooperation is quite capable of beating the God of Cancer. Like, I'm not sure what your point here is. Innovation is a double-edged sword? It can sometimes bite us back, but the alternative is to not innovate. Is that what you're suggesting here, or...? Like, first off, by innovations, I mean things like Uber. Small scale stuff that just increases productivity and creates new markets and things like that. Not 'literally magic'.
Jesus does not have every climatologist in the world supporting him.
Only every second Christian.