I’m simply rebutting your assertion that faster than expected solar adoption is a good thing, because that statement can’t be isolated from faster than expected deterioration in climate.
If climate change wasn’t a thing solar would only be useful for applications where connection to the grid is impractical.
Solar adoption isn’t a positive thing, it’s merely somewhat mitigating a pretty terrible thing.
That is genuinely the most nonsensical, self-contradicting thing I’ve read this week, and you’re not even the only one pursuing this train of thought in this thread.
I have to wonder if some of this doomerist online climate activism thing is a misinformation psyop because… man, that’s some weird place to land on dialectically just by accident. Except it’s probably not (I mean, who would bother doing that on Lemmy) and that’s probably what happened. The set of incentives for opinions social media has generated is genuinely bizarre.
Addressing the threat of climate change is not going well. Talking about it frankly may be “doomerist” but that does not make it untrue.
We’re producing more CO2 than we ever have. The detrimental effects of CO2 are emerging more quickly than we had thought. All over the world we’re electing governments disinclined to take any action.
To look at this situation and conclude that rolling out solar production is a positive thing is naive.
“This whole climate change thing could be a bit worse, so that’s positive… right?”
I did not, in fact, say you were a bot. I did say you sounded like one while implying you’re the product of an attention economy that rewards consistently extreme positions to the point of absurdity.
Flat earther-adjacent? Yep. Bot? Nope. Actively detrimental to the issue you claim to care about with single-minded obsessiveness? Sadly, yeah.
Being performatively nihilistic about an issue isn’t the same as being realistic, and being willing to acknowledge positive developments in a bad situation isn’t naive. That’s another side effect of the outrage economy.
Once again, for those in the back, climate change isn’t something you fix and the transition to a sustainable energy mix isn’t someting you do. This is an ongoing effort that will continue indefinitely, both in mitigating negative effects that have already been triggered and in reducing or eliminating negative effects still in play. Positive developments will be plentiful along the way, even in situations where the overall trend is negative, or not as positive as it should have been. Boiling it down to a good/bad overall choice is downright infantile.
I’m simply rebutting your assertion that faster than expected solar adoption is a good thing, because that statement can’t be isolated from faster than expected deterioration in climate.
If climate change wasn’t a thing solar would only be useful for applications where connection to the grid is impractical.
Solar adoption isn’t a positive thing, it’s merely somewhat mitigating a pretty terrible thing.
That is genuinely the most nonsensical, self-contradicting thing I’ve read this week, and you’re not even the only one pursuing this train of thought in this thread.
I have to wonder if some of this doomerist online climate activism thing is a misinformation psyop because… man, that’s some weird place to land on dialectically just by accident. Except it’s probably not (I mean, who would bother doing that on Lemmy) and that’s probably what happened. The set of incentives for opinions social media has generated is genuinely bizarre.
“I think you’re a bot” is just a cheap insult.
Addressing the threat of climate change is not going well. Talking about it frankly may be “doomerist” but that does not make it untrue.
We’re producing more CO2 than we ever have. The detrimental effects of CO2 are emerging more quickly than we had thought. All over the world we’re electing governments disinclined to take any action.
To look at this situation and conclude that rolling out solar production is a positive thing is naive.
“This whole climate change thing could be a bit worse, so that’s positive… right?”
I did not, in fact, say you were a bot. I did say you sounded like one while implying you’re the product of an attention economy that rewards consistently extreme positions to the point of absurdity.
Flat earther-adjacent? Yep. Bot? Nope. Actively detrimental to the issue you claim to care about with single-minded obsessiveness? Sadly, yeah.
Being performatively nihilistic about an issue isn’t the same as being realistic, and being willing to acknowledge positive developments in a bad situation isn’t naive. That’s another side effect of the outrage economy.
Once again, for those in the back, climate change isn’t something you fix and the transition to a sustainable energy mix isn’t someting you do. This is an ongoing effort that will continue indefinitely, both in mitigating negative effects that have already been triggered and in reducing or eliminating negative effects still in play. Positive developments will be plentiful along the way, even in situations where the overall trend is negative, or not as positive as it should have been. Boiling it down to a good/bad overall choice is downright infantile.