|
|
|
|
|
|
by incompatible
726 days ago
|
|
|
It would make sense not to do any of that, "drive to the beach, fly somewhere for a holiday, take a boat to scuba dive, take a bus to the snow", if it involves burning fossil fuels. Agriculture on the other hand can't be simply abandoned. Powering equipment from non-emitting energy sources is needed. |
|
|
It does involve burning fossil fuels, and so does exercise because it increases your calorie requirement and food involves burning fossil fuels, so that too? Owning and using computers, phones, and internet does too, so none of that for recreational purposes either?
> Agriculture on the other hand can't be simply abandoned.
Why not?
> Powering equipment from non-emitting energy sources is needed.
It's not just powering equipment, it's petroleum used to create chemicals to grow and plastics and other products to process and create machines (tires, oils, plastic and rubber parts, petroleum based chemicals). And even if you were to "solve" carbon emissions completely, there are still many non-renewable resources being depleted and many pollutants being released, from microplastics to fertilizers and herbicides to toxic chemicals from chip manufacturing.
Define "make sense". I'm genuinely curious how you've arrived here so confidently. If it was climate change being the singular issue and nothing else matters short of actively murdering people, then any and all carbon producing economic activity should be shut down. But you're not going that far, so it seems "productive" economic activity is okay, but recreation is not. So we have to be cogs in the machine, but we can't have fun.
Not sure many would agree with you, or that even you would be able to stick to your own plan.