Climate Change

[kuronosan]

You guys heard it here first. If something sounds impossible to do like I dunno, going to the moon or something, then it's not worth trying everything you can to make it a reality because it's just not realistic and stuff.

I mean, why advance at all when there risk and shit?

This is why Hollywood fucking sucks right now. No risks, just rehashes.

Republicans busy crying about snowflakes and they can't even rise above their cowardice and take a risk; they'd rather maintain a status quo that is unsustainable.

[Zetanio]

We might fail though. Oh no.

[Mythe_Seraph]

You guys heard it here first. If something sounds impossible to do like I dunno, going to the moon or something, then it's not worth trying everything you can to make it a reality because it's just not realistic and stuff.

I mean, why advance at all when there risk and shit?

This is why Hollywood fucking sucks right now. No risks, just rehashes.

Yeah these are two terrible comparisons.

This is an even more daunting task than going to the moon because you're requiring the participation, and cooperation, of the general public. You don't get to select from a pool of only superior professionals to participate in the team work needed here. You're asking (read: forcing through legislation) bottom to top. Also being able to sequence the steps necessary for making the moon mission possible didn't require those sequenced steps to be approved by opposing parties through a series of voting. While I can see that there may be internal dispute on how things should be handled in regards to the Moon mission I doubt it took literal months for even any single decision to be made. Completely different systems. Completely different infrastructures. Two major tasks, yes, but one is nothing like the other.

Also you Hollywood movie comparison is even worse and doesn't really apply or make sense.

[kuronosan]

Yeah these are two terrible comparisons.

This is an even more daunting task than going to the moon because you're requiring the participation, and cooperation, of the general public. You don't get to select from a pool of only superior professionals to participate in the team work needed here. You're asking (read: forcing through legislation) bottom to top. Also being able to sequence the steps necessary for making the moon mission possible didn't require those sequenced steps to be approved by opposing parties through a series of voting. While I can see that there may be internal dispute on how things should be handled in regards to the Moon mission I doubt it took literal months for even any single decision to be made. Completely different systems. Completely different infrastructures. Two major tasks, yes, but one is nothing like the other.

Also you Hollywood movie comparison is even worse and doesn't really apply or make sense.

Or you're taking something that doesn't need to be complicated and complicating it because you're a fucking coward who is afraid to take a risk.

You say potato, I say "none of that shit matters".

[Day]

So fast to personal attacks on this forum

[kuronosan]

So fast to "so srs guyz" on this forum

[Day]

wut

[kuronosan]

Precisely.

[Day]

Need to follow the politiforum rules buddy. I reported you.

[synistar]

California has it's own blend(s) of gasoline. Oil had to adapt to the market or someone else was going to profit from it. The legislation is a push towards an ideal. And if the benchmarks aren't hit by 2045, there is significant progress to achieving it. Or we can stop innovating and fuck things up more. idk

[kuronosan]

Need to follow the politiforum rules buddy. I reported you.

For making a satirical jab at a party and using general terms in response to somebody critical of my post?

I mean, do you really think I was calling him a coward or do you think, just perhaps, I was actually calling that attitude, reminiscent of a party mentality I was just criticizing, cowardly?

Because spoiler alert: I wasn't calling him a coward.

But please, continue white-knighting away.

[Mythe_Seraph]

Or you're taking something that doesn't need to be complicated and complicating it because you're a fucking coward who is afraid to take a risk.

You say potato, I say "none of that shit matters".

I mean you're basically saying that facing the facts is cowardly and the courageous thing to do is take an already irresponsible state (CA) and make it an even more exclusive, price discriminatory and unstable environment for the typical American to live. If taking risks requires a state to make legislation that is undoubtedly going to not only first, fail, but also create hardship that may not be reversible for some individuals living there that eventually pushes them out of the community itself, then yeah, count me out.

I'm not critical of the ideas themselves, but I think it's almost laughable that CA is the state that picks this (overly) ambitious mission due to the fact that it's the least likely to succeed. That's not bravery. And me pointing it out isn't being cowardly. At least the moon mission started with you know, actual working rockets. This is like starting the moon mission with uh, I don't know, a card board box carrying space, 1 oxygen tank for everyone on board and a flip phone (back in the day, yeah, but speaking in relation to current tech) as your navigational computer.

[Rooney]

Pretty sure ignoring it "because it's not feasible" results in even worse consequences.

[Mythe_Seraph]

Pretty sure operating "because it's the law" results in no change and similar consequences.

[Roranora]

if you really believed in the "ideas themselves," then a state committing to implement them wouldn't invoke the undoubted failure you forecast

furthermore, the lone state making such commitments is somehow less likely to achieve them than other states that mandate no such shift to renewables? this makes no sense

you're trying to cloak negativity under the guise of realism, when the most realistic thing to understand is 27 years is far enough away that none of us know how well the targets will or won't be met (also perhaps long enough for the effects of climate change to truly shake us)

like what are you hating on CA for here? you've got some Fox News-like descriptors calling CA irresponsible but no real substance beyond poor people may have increased hardship, something sure to happen with unchecked climate change

i mean if nihilism is your endgame and you think we should just emit carbon until biodiversity approaches zero, then just say that. you present no better (or even alternative) approach for a state to combat climate change, which itself might be fine, but instead you insist it's laughable and has no chance to succeed

this legislation will surely increase renewables technologies, climate change awareness, and stand as a firm rebuke to this administration's gross ignorance and lack of action. those alone make this a sound move

you know, it may be too little too late already, and this legislation is by no means perfect, but to imply you'd support the initiative were it any other state is frankly disingenuous and shows a dismissal of the scale of our problem here

[kuronosan]

I mean you're basically saying that facing the facts is cowardly and the courageous thing to do is take an already irresponsible state (CA) and make it an even more exclusive, price discriminatory and unstable environment for the typical American to live. If taking risks requires a state to make legislation that is undoubtedly going to not only first, fail, but also create hardship that may not be reversible for some individuals living there that eventually pushes them out of the community itself, then yeah, count me out.

I'm not critical of the ideas themselves, but I think it's almost laughable that CA is the state that picks this (overly) ambitious mission due to the fact that it's the least likely to succeed. That's not bravery. And me pointing it out isn't being cowardly. At least the moon mission started with you know, actual working rockets. This is like starting the moon mission with uh, I don't know, a card board box carrying space, 1 oxygen tank for everyone on board and a flip phone (back in the day, yeah, but speaking in relation to current tech) as your navigational computer.

I guess I just don't understand why you're so against the idea of just... trying something different?

I mean, if we just keep doing the same stuff and things are getting worse... why would you be for just doing the stuff because something that sounds radical and hasn't been tried seems unrealistic?

And I realize this is in context of California.

[Roranora]

also kindly note the truly radical ideas haven't even started yet

[arus2001]

I view it as legislative chicken. I don't expect the tech and such to get there, but if we're a lot closer than the alternative of not even trying, by say another 10 years being more reasonable at that point, I'd consider it a win.

[Zealot]

When the auto and power industries are given the choice of advancing their technology or not doing business with California, they will update their tech every time.

[Zetanio]

It's almost like they are a gigantic economic force with a GDP larger than most countries.