Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_iwvmmoh wrote

Reply to comment by RubberPny in Tuvalu starts to digitise their nation as rising seas threaten existence | Tuvalu said on Thursday that it plans to build a digital version of itself, replicating islands and landmarks and preserving its history and culture as rising sea levels threaten to submerge the tiny Pacific nation by imrussellcrowe

[deleted]

68

WorldsBestPapa t1_iwvnv7e wrote

If c02 output dropped to 0 today then the islands would still flood.

53

[deleted] t1_iwvpm3x wrote

[deleted]

48

WorldsBestPapa t1_iwvuior wrote

Yes am- but your claim was that they are being flooded because polluters won’t lower their output. I’m only pointing out that if output went to 0 today then enough damage has been done already and these islands are already lost.

22

jreed12 t1_iwwc7bv wrote

You are being overly pedantic, as Redditor's do so love to do, and missing the broader point. So go back and say because emissions weren't lowered 20 years ago when we knew this was a problem, or emissions weren't lowered 40 years ago when experts in the Energy industry and research scientists knew this was a problem.

Being technically correct doesn't always make you right.

−14

WorldsBestPapa t1_iwwjcyg wrote

I am both technically and factually correct and it is, unfortunately, you who has missed the broader point by mentioning an irrelevant one.

Yes if we had a Time Machine and political will we could have fixed it 40 years ago. We don’t.

I simply and clearly stated completely eliminating emissions would do nothing for Tuvalu now, it’s too late.

3

jreed12 t1_iwwksbc wrote

Yes yes you win the debate great pedant lord.

−15

bpetersonlaw t1_iwvpocg wrote

Yes. Polluters needed to lower CO2 output decades ago. Islands will flood unless the govts find some incredible solution to lowering temps. E.g. simulating volcano eruptions worldwide to block 10% of sunlight. Which would then lead to reduced crop production and starvation. It's a fucking grim future for our children.

20

Cadaver_Junkie t1_iwx7l8f wrote

Oh you’re right! Why bother doing anything?

I mean, we polluted massively for ages when being told it would cause intense problems whilst denying climate change, and now we’ll accept climate change is a thing when we can just say “changing won’t wake a difference”.

I guess the step after that is to somehow blame those who tried to warn us, say they weren’t doing enough and it’s their fault we have this problem? Whilst continuing to pollute?

And after that we can move to cheaper and more profitable renewables anyway with the money made from wrecking the planet and claim we were part of the solution all along?

I like your plan. I mean, it’s 100% asshole, but well done.

3

WorldsBestPapa t1_iwx7qkk wrote

I did not state any plan for the future. I only commented that it was too late to help Tuvalu. Work on your reading comprehension dumbass .

2

Cadaver_Junkie t1_iwx8a78 wrote

My point is, your comment was completely useless.

It implies we shouldn’t bother, the damage was already done. Well done on comprehending your own comments there, and being part of the problem.

−3

WorldsBestPapa t1_iwx8dui wrote

My comment does not imply anything. It directly states that Tuvalu is gone no matter what. Any implication you are deriving is a result of poor inference and reading comprehension skills on your part.

2

Cadaver_Junkie t1_iwx8mkd wrote

There's a greater context to this conversation, but if you prefer to have a shallow conversation I guess that's up to you

−3

WorldsBestPapa t1_iwx97fm wrote

And i understand that and have had many before and would’ve had one now except for the tiny little thing where you immediately popped off and insulted me with assumptions for a point I was never arguing.

Obviously emissions need to be cut, yesterday, but you didn’t try to discuss that and instead chose to aggressively comment with false assumptions. Something to think about for the next time.

Cheers.

2

Cadaver_Junkie t1_iwx9edv wrote

I'm just sick of all the apathy, which your comment really read as. Glad that's not how you feel about it.

2

kakapantsu t1_iwvrzrj wrote

Livestock produces more CO2 than vehicle activity.

0

THE_some_guy t1_iwvzdxp wrote

Do you have a source for that? Our World in Data shows that transportation is responsible for 16.2% of global greenhouse gas emissions, while livestock is just 5.8%

10

I_Am_Not_Newo t1_iww2xdc wrote

I think these are represenated so differently in different sources because they are contingent on how you calculate emissions - for example how much of transportation is related to getting animals from farm to plate? what about supporting infrastructure sure as abbatoirs, tractors, roads ECT? Should you add those? Some would and some wouldn't depending on their standards or how they wanted represent the data.

Also the OP posted cars which are actually not a large part of transportation - trucks, trains, planes and ships emit a fair percentage of transportation related emissions

6