One would need to restrict the allowed methods to safe and scalable ones (like extraction from seawater, not ocean seeding).
[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GmWpFCjh0Fk for prices and methods + https://www.mcc-berlin.net/fileadmin/data/clock/carbon_clock... + simplistic back of envelope calculation (assumes cost scales up linearly)
Its like telling me that its ok if a company shits in my garden and then donates some money to the public cleaning fund.
I dont want to have trash in my garden or deal with shit from companies.
We are actively trashing this planet for younger generations. To feel good we say, no problem to companies if they donate some money to charities or organizations which do some cleanup.
Why allow companies to pollute in first place ?
Oh wait, because of lobbies.
Never Mind.
Except companies will go for the cheapest possible solution that “counts” for carbon credits, which is probably entirely fraudulent.
There's also the rather obvious conflict of interest between politicians needing/wanting money and politicians being supposed to represent the will of the people (rather than the will of those who can give them a lot of money). That police officers aren't being bribed doesn't mean we don't have corruption. We just have corruption with Western characteristics.
Regardless, writing X in a box every four years is hardly a “democracy”.
It's the same way that you can't say a child abuser isn't responsible for his crimes because he was abused himself as a child. Yes, that's a factor that contributed to his actions, but he's still responsible for his own actions no matter how difficult the decision is.
Yes, voting every 4 years is a democracy. It might not be direct democracy but direct democracy has serious problems and you probably wouldn't want it.
Politicians, backed by professional PR companies who in turn are based on sociology/psychology and years of studies, can pull on emotional strings of people who are already self identify into entrenched positions. Using emotions is clearly easier and more powerful way of getting votes. The only way to win is to play their game, and that costs a lot of money.
Its a fools game to try convince anyone with facts, it simply doesn't work. Thats why anti vaccines, flat earth etc are so rampant today. The more you reason with those type of people the more you entrench them.
do you mean plain jane A/B testing?
that tends to happen around here. valid points don't matter, only group think get upvoted
Its incredible how common it is that people picture themselves as self-thinking individuals who came to their conclusions by doing their own research ... and then repeat all the standard talking points by some other group.
It was the same old nonsense with no actual solutions.
- Nord Stream 2 is a project that will further allow Germany to burn more Gas cheaper (more emissions) and become geopoliticaly more dependent on Russian infrastructure
- The EU loses geopolitical strength if it is unable to cut ties with Russia as an escalation counter-measure (Because it's biggest net contributor actually needs Russian gas to keep the lights on).
- Just like you have had extreme groups and extremist recruitment/propaganda forming around other divisive issues, it is inevitable that some form of environment related extremism will evolve in particular when populations start to become displaced. The obvious target of such groups would be fossil fuel industry leaders and lobbyists.
If we both are on a cliff face and you fell off, and now you are dangling connected by rope to only me. Standard movie trope.
Now because of your weight my only options are to cut the rope - you die, or wait and we both die. This is more accurate example we are talking about here, not killing poor people because 'crime'.
Also I would like to point out that poor people are not root cause of crime. So you are not tackling actual problem, only applying band-aid solutions. But that's a tangential topic.
Neither is climate change, is it? Unless there's some research I haven't heard about, I think you're doing science denial misinformation spouting.
At this stage this is trolling.
There is too big of an asymmetry with the current situation: profits, tax incentives, lobbying, and regulatory capture. This is not something that the average person can address from within the existing judiciary system.
At the moment you will need either something that will make carbon emissions unprofitable, or an epiphany from those abusing the status quo, that would lead to de facto climate regulation. Neither of those will happen without some incentive (positive or negative).
> If we are to survive climate change we would have to cull all politicians and dirty industry leaders. They have so much power over the world and don;t give a fuck about next generation.
I agree this is the inevitable end of this trajectory. Eventually there will be environmental extreme groups that will target fossil fuel leaders.
Controversially, ignoring the ethical aspects of this, it would be an incentives equalizer to precipitate real climate regulation. Currently there is no incentive to do so, this dynamics would change with a palpable fear of immediate injury/death.