[eesmith]

So is your argument that we need to cut back on air travel first?

Or that we need to cut back on air travel while also reducing CO2 emissions from data centers, with more emphasis on cutting back on air travel?

[jeffbee]

No, my argument is that this video is false from its very first frame. There is no sense in which humans were on a path to net zero.

[eesmith]

The first frame "we were on track for fossil fuel use to top out". That's not net zero.

All I see is a hope for net zero future, and nowhere that we were on a path to net zero.

[FloorEgg]

There is no path to net zero that doesn't involve carbon capture, and carbon capture won't happen at scale until someone figures out how to make money off of it.

[eesmith]

Okay .... so until then we stick our heads in the sand?

No additional regulations on tech and energy use? Continued subsidizes for oil and gas extraction? Nothing at all until someone cracks carbon capture?

Because it seems like hoping for a Hail Mary is either very optimistic or so pessimistic that you've given up.

[FloorEgg]

Wow you are projecting a lot of assumptions on to me.

I said we can't solve net zero until we solve economically sustainable carbon capture, nothing about sticking heads in the sand.

My opinions of each solution you proposed depends on the details. For example it's easy for me to say yeah no subsidies for oil and gas extraction, but if Texas wants to subsidize it locally as a net boost to their economy then I have no influence over that and it's a waste of my time and skills to spend any time trying to prevent that, especially because I don't live in Texas.

And if anything I'm advocating for more people to work on economically viable carbon capture, not for us to do nothing.

So my answer in all cases is going to be some version of "spend your time working the problem from wherever you get the most leverage".