Are these expectations impossible, or simply accrued to the most privileged in society? It's not the materiality those kids are complaining about, it's the distribution. Big Corp and Big Government really think they can gas light Americans even when we have access to all the data. That's the rage
It couldn't exist otherwise. The privileged will always be the ones to push the boundaries of any endeavor, medicine included. Have hope that those rewards continue to work their way down, even though the process is long and arduous.
That's just a failure of imagination, no? Endless sci-fi stories tell us a better world is possible, including wild genetic treatments curing deafness. Why should that apply to tech, but not society?
I agree with the first sentence. Alternatively, it's amazing how the environmental activists pushing these agendas are focusing on such bad faith efforts. Where has the outcry been to put sulfur back in maritime fuel, as another commenter mentioned? Where is the effort to fix America's broken recycling system? Where is the effort to eliminate the millions of pieces of daily junk mail?
If environmental efforts weren't targeted at the most authoritarian and obtuse results (demands to stop all car use, mass polluters being labeled green through the use of carbon credits, etc.) it'd be a lot easier to take the threat seriously. When the solution to the problem is 'pay me more money and do the things I want you to do' it turns the 'extinction level threat' into just another sales pitch.
Complain about "bad faith efforts" and finish with a bad faith argument, beautiful
idk where you get your sources but if all you see is activists asking to ban cars and advocate for carbon credits you really haven't look hard enough (or at all)
Because it obviously is just delaying the problem ? And air pollution isn't just about temperature, it's what you and every living thing breath, and it's a factor of ocean acidification which is a major problem...
Also:
> the 2020 regulations to cut air pollution from shipping is to increase global temperatures by around 0.05C by 2050.
(I'm not the person who commented before, but) I don't personally know much about the sulfur situation, and your comment plus another user's have made me decide to read up on it later today to learn more.
Since your first comment showed a complete lack of understanding / belief of misinformation about climate change, I would suggest making an effort to learn about it yourself rather than deciding to be happy not understanding and dismissing those who are well informed as just having different views on the world.
Please quantify the economic damage related to the decrease of sulfur in the worlds oceans. I'd love to see the breakout on the impact on Phytoplankton reproduction and the repurcussions on global fish reproduction.
Ironically enough, burning lots of sulfur is the only thing that has ever worked against global warming.
As in it's the only thing that has both been tried and that has worked.
For very good reasons (eg we don't like acid rain) we stopped putting so much sulfur in the atmosphere. And if we were to do it again, we wouldn't do it by burning dirty coal near to the ground. We would probably do it via additives to jet fuel.
Has it really decreased the prevalence of acid rain that much, and was acid rain really that large an issue? I haven't heard anything about it since the 90s.
If you're in the West then you haven't heard about it much because it really was a big problem and reducing it was a success story: "Wet sulfate deposition – a common indicator of acid rain – dropped by more than 70% between 1989-1991 and 2020-2022." https://www.epa.gov/acidrain/acid-rain-program-results
I think you've demonstrated how forgetful we are. A problem gets solved but because it's not a problem we question if the fuss was worth it. Same with the Y2K bug, that got loads of hype and afterwards people complained that no planes fell out of the sky, ignoring the massive amount of work that went into reducing the problem.
Yes. Though the Y2K bug was 'only' ever going to affect boring backend operations, not planes falling out of the sky (nor nukes going off..)
I put 'only' in scare quotes, because that would have still been enough chaos and disruption.
(Compare to how Covid was/is by and large a fairly harmless and mild disease and only really poses any danger, if you have pre-existing issues or supremely bad luck (just like lots of diseases we already have), but still managed to paralyse society.)
Coming back from the tangent: in the West sulfur emissions were tamed with a cap-and-trade regime (if I remember right), which is a pretty good example that these things can work, if implemented and enforced properly. Alas, so far similar efforts for CO2 have been lacking.
These are differences in perspective. If you can't handle my disagreement with your imposition of regulation on my life, then you are the overbearing lack of evidence I fundamentally disagree with.
That climate activists should be immediately pushing to re&add sulfur? Please show one source citing negative effects of an effort to re-add, and one source citing positive effects of its removal. I find it funny to have three such vapid responses in such a short time.
Almost as if people latch onto the emotional immediacy of being 'activists for good' instead of making substantive change.
This is a bad example and overall I don't see the argument. For decades companies did force workers into extremely long hours. The standardization of the 40 hour work week was in some sense a collective action effort, starting with the request of the National Labor Union in the U.S. in 1866. [1] Prior to those efforts, workers in industrialized positions were indeed working 80 to 100 hours a week on average, with little to no recourse.
Beyond that, you ask 'Why would workers argue for fewer hours if it doesn't end up costing the company net profits? The workers don't care about net profits, at least at the expense of their own time. Time is money, and if the company has more of your time, you have less...
>Prior to those efforts, workers in industrialized positions were indeed working 80 to 100 hours a week on average, with little to no recourse.
And much lower productivity. Even by recent metrics we know the modern work is twice as efficient, but apparently the average hours per week worked is around 55-60 hours.
That's part of the point. It in fact has quickly dimishing returns to work more than X hours, and past that there probably is some physical breakdown point wher ea worker loses productivety in the mid-long term (e.g. working 120 hours for 2 weeks, then sick for a month. Congrats, you lost 80 hours of productiviy + whatever middling returns happened) but companies won't budge without collective action.
