Hacker Timesnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

What are you talking about? Those two things have nothing to do with each other (and this is actually the second time I’ve noticed you dogwhistling).


Lockdowns reduced carbon emissions.

https://earth.stanford.edu/news/covid-lockdown-causes-record...

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3089/local-lockdowns-brought-f...

As for dog whistling, only dogs hear those and conspiracy theorists think they do.


An unprecedented global economic shutdown dropped emissions by 7%. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00090-3

It's not the way out, nor has it been proposed by anyone serious to be.


People drastically decreasing consumption (i.e. moving less mass less distance) is the only way out in a realistic timeframe, if even possible now.


I agree. But this is the ruling class we have. They thought it was a good idea to occupy Afghanistan for 20 years, and then botched the exit to top it off. Think they'll handle climate change more competently? That wouldn't follow the pattern we've seen for decades.


I certainly think it's likely they'll poorly handle climate change; that's already happened for decades.

Your assertion that they'll try handling it with lockdowns is what I'm contesting, and recent history sides with me, IMO. Said ruling class in most countries couldn't even politically sustain lockdowns for a global pandemic, let alone on a longer, more widespread term for a more abstract threat.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: