I assume this is Myriad's pathetic answer to my
post 1,839:
'Ha, ha! In a couple of centuries, your country will have disappeared!'
As if I hadn't already pointed that out:
I was just pointing out that the issue has some rather serious implications, as a subtle (perhaps too subtle) suggestion that rejecting one approach because you claim it's less effective than another might be a bit foolish when we don't know that even the sum total of all known approaches will be sufficient to prevent long-term disaster. My town's mean elevation is 6 meters.
The elevation of Blatten, Switzerland was over 2,500 meters.
The problem with bad-mouthing "austerity" as useless virtue signaling is that everyone regards any change they make, that inconveniences them or limits their experiences in any way, as austerity. Anything from recycling cans to not riding on a Blue Origin flight is "austerity" to somebody.
Does government-subsidized solar power make imported fresh produce out of season, electronics replaced often due to fashion trends or careless treatment, fast-fashion clothing, travel to worldwide vacation destinations, sprawling lawns, or cruise ships carbon-neutral? They do not and they cannot in the foreseeable future. Does government-subsidized solar power reduce the carbon emissions from food production, construction and construction materials, and transportation so much that the global carbon budget can easily afford imported fresh produce etc. at their current or even higher future levels? No, it does not and cannot in the foreseeable future.
And yet, those and a thousand other benefits and luxuries are all things many people like and would miss, so reducing any of them is someone's austerity.
Climate change doesn't threaten the planet (Earth will be fine), or the biosphere (it's recovered from worse), or the human species (we're more resilient than cockroaches). But the map shows quite a bit is at stake even so.
If you'd be clearer about whatever agenda you think is such a singular and perfect solution to climate change that nothing else is necessary, I might feel differently. But regarding the situation in my own country, you've told me that voting is useless (I agree), conventional activism like protesting is useless (I agree), hoping that things will just change by themselves is useless (I agree), running for office to effect change from within is useless (I agree), voting with my wallet by refusing carbon-wasteful products and services is "austerity" and therefore somehow worse than useless, and acting outside the law is out of the question. But nonetheless I should get off my butt and do that one obvious easily doable necessary thing that will fix everything but you don't wanna tell what it is. Whatever you think you're gaining by that kind of taunting, it's not going to keep the ocean away from any of our respective major cities.
My best theory at the moment is that for some reason you think I have the means to invest amounts of money large enough to influence the course of industry and finance. My second best theory is that you want me to participate in violent revolution and for some reason you think I'd be too shocked or complacent to hear such a thing, as if violent change wasn't already going on here. (Please don't try to claim anything in this paragraph is a straw man. There are no straw men here, just wild guesses, which are there because you won't speak plainly.)
en.wikipedia.org
