• xapr@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You have a reasonable argument, but then the solution should be to stop all fossil fuel consumption except for the production of life-sustaining products, like food.

    According to this link, food production accounts for only 26% of total carbon output. There we go, problem solved. We can cut total carbon output by 74% and still produce the same amount of food.

    • halcyondays@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I didn’t say there was a solution. Stopping fossil fuels, along with plummeting quality of life, means less global dimming, which would accelerate our impending BOE, and the loss of albedo from that would further accelerate warming. We’re way past any possibility of a solution.

      • xapr@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wasn’t even aware of those details, even though I share the feeling that we’re past any possibility of a solution. I want to believe that there is a chance and not be a doomer and give up, but it’s hard. I hope we’re wrong. :(

      • TremblingTelepath@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hahahahaha oh man you are just mentally imprisoning yourself for no reason

        Resource consumption is not a linear function of population you complete dunderhead 🤣