I would agree that there are two stories that matter, the invasion by Russia being the other, in part because we won't have to worry about extinction by climate change if nuclear winter happens before that.
Also unfortunately, as the world becomes more and more scarce with its resources (seafood, freshwater, topsoil, fertilizer, usable sand, etc) we're probably only going to see more of these wars in the next couple of decades, even if this one is resolved without nukes or a World War.
I don't agree with you about not wanting people to suffer now bit, though. Allowing relentless and cheap consumption of resources got us to this place in the first place. There needs to be drastic reduction in consumption of resources happening, and it should have started at least fifty years ago.
It's like asking someone who's had a heart attack to not start getting a handle on their health because you don't want them to suffer any hardships right now.
I'm saying this as someone who is struggling to get my own health back on track myself and had heart attack scares a few times (thankfully not an actual heart attack yet, just very convincing heartburn)...it's definitely difficult, but I can and should be doing more. Like I should be doing more to reduce my consumption of resources as well. I've done some for both, but nowhere near enough or fast enough.
That being said, I don't want people to die from lack of heat or anything either. I also think the governments of the world should be doing a lot to ease the burden without just making fossil fuels cheap again, restructuring our society so we will naturally need to consume less resources (more communal places to stay for the days when it's extremely cold with no stigma attached to it, massive funding projects to convert homes away from natural gas heating, etc).
> I don't agree with you about not wanting people to suffer now bit, though. Allowing relentless and cheap consumption of resources got us to this place in the first place.
I'm fine with "a bit" of suffering or inconvenience. Implementing a carbon tax on anything beyond basic needs in rich countries would be an option for that. Pressuring developing countries to not burn coal without offering providing a better alternative wouldn't. That would be equivalent to "a lot of suffering".
Also unfortunately, as the world becomes more and more scarce with its resources (seafood, freshwater, topsoil, fertilizer, usable sand, etc) we're probably only going to see more of these wars in the next couple of decades, even if this one is resolved without nukes or a World War.
I don't agree with you about not wanting people to suffer now bit, though. Allowing relentless and cheap consumption of resources got us to this place in the first place. There needs to be drastic reduction in consumption of resources happening, and it should have started at least fifty years ago.
It's like asking someone who's had a heart attack to not start getting a handle on their health because you don't want them to suffer any hardships right now.
I'm saying this as someone who is struggling to get my own health back on track myself and had heart attack scares a few times (thankfully not an actual heart attack yet, just very convincing heartburn)...it's definitely difficult, but I can and should be doing more. Like I should be doing more to reduce my consumption of resources as well. I've done some for both, but nowhere near enough or fast enough.
That being said, I don't want people to die from lack of heat or anything either. I also think the governments of the world should be doing a lot to ease the burden without just making fossil fuels cheap again, restructuring our society so we will naturally need to consume less resources (more communal places to stay for the days when it's extremely cold with no stigma attached to it, massive funding projects to convert homes away from natural gas heating, etc).