|
|
|
|
|
|
by pas
339 days ago
|
|
|
there are of course more than enough "natural resources" to sustain such consumption, the problem is paradoxically the opposite, too much easy to extract shit that we then emit into our own environment the fix is also not complicated (remove GHG from the air, remove endocrine disruptors from the food cycle, etc.) the costs are high though, but not that high, compared to - for example - the famines of past but as population will peak - at least for now - and as we continue to ramp up renewable energy generation these problems are not insurmountable in any sense ... places affected by storms and extreme heat/cold days need better infrastructure, but since urbanization continues to drive people to cities (as it did for the last few hundreds of years) these places need new and better infrastructure anyway! |
|
|
Are you abstracting away the technical complexity when stating that it's not complicated? GHG removal tech that would scale simply doesn't exist if we intend to have some energy left to do anything else, as for removing pfas and microplastics from the environment, we are at the stage of running experiments in petri dishes.
And even if we abstract away the technical complexity, good luck convincing anyone to stop burning the free fuel we have lying around doing nothing now that we have everything-nuclear-solar and GHG removal at scale. We can barely convince our councils to build cycle lanes in dense areas if that removes any space for SUVs.
I wish I'd share the blind optimism of people like you, it seems pleasant to live in your heads...