[ChrisMarshallNY]

I am glad to see sunshine on this matter, but...boy, that site is rather extreme. [UPDATE] I'm talking about the site; not the report.

I do believe that climate change is an existential threat, and am rather disappointed that it looks like I'll get a front-row seat for the start of things, during my lifetime.

It's just that I think extreme rhetoric, and extremist positions, are making global cooperation almost impossible.

[lowkey_]

I saw how extreme this page was but didn't even check out how ludicrously extreme the rest of the website was — they have an "action guide" on how to smash windows [1]. As if cracking a window or throwing paint will somehow... help the environment, or rally people to their cause?

[1] https://scientistrebellion.com/resources/

[aaomidi]

It's about civil disobedience.

Some even believe that a country without a strong federal state would be better for the environment by killing a lot of incentives that the strong federal state provides to gas and oil companies.

[Jack5500]

I first thought that you meant the report itself, which I don't think is the case.

But after reading you comment again, I think you mean the site itself and I would agree.

Good thing, that the report itself is the main publication and will be processed by the various media outlets around the world, who will find a more suitable communcation style.

i.e. this interview in the German media: https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/gesellschaft/scientist-rebe...

[th0ma5]

A moderate opinion is that we should ban all private combustion.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

I can live with halting all private combustion, but how do we get there?

Who takes the hardest hit? Trick question. The answer is always "The poorest people."

Unless we have a world war (which is likely to have an effect on the climate), where a dictatorial regime conquers all of the world, and imposes these types of things by fiat, we need to learn to work together, which does mean making compromises, and looking at root causes that may be several degrees removed, such as global poverty.

Poverty is something that can be found at the root of so many troubles, yet people aren't particularly interested in addressing it. I have family that have been very involved in addressing poverty, and it's a tremendous problem. They are now engaged in an effort to get groups of people with widely divergent opinions and competing interests, to work together (to address poverty, and other pressing issues).

It's really not simple, at all. When we go into "extreme" mode, our thinking becomes "binary." We -quite literally- become unable to even conceive ideas that would actually fix things.

[aaomidi]

So for example, wood stoves in vermont are now banned under your proposal?

[genewitch]

I guess people can just freeze, or use the wildly less efficient electric grid to heat their homes (seriously, resistive heating is the least efficient, moreso considering the waste in generating it with heat and then inefficiencies with transmission.

If you're going to use electricity to heat, at least mine bitcoin or something.

[aaomidi]

Yep to your first point. Even if we count in heat pumps (or geothermal heat pumps and how expensive they are), you're still probably better off using a newer wood stove (old ones were pretty shit)

Wood stoves in forested places directly contributes to the local economies compared to spending $$$ on the infrastructure necessary for other types of energy. It also adds a capital incentive to keep growing trees and not turning them into cattle-ground.