Staking Your Life On It: All In For A Climate, All In For A Future | Rupert Read

[@susancerezo401]

A very inspiring moment. Thank you so much, both of you !!!!!!!!!!❤❤❤

[@HumanEcologyProject]

Thank you for sharing this wonderful soul with his lifetime of wisdom. Agree 100% move the negatives out of your life... and be proactive - it's the best survival mode for our hearts.

[@radscorpion8]

I definitely disagree. Deglobalization is the opposite of likely. It is far more likely that we will have more globalization. And this is far better for society as well. We cannot be a group of independent countries minding their own business, periodically getting into wars, leaving the side effects of harvesting, say, the Amazon rainforest, as an externality for the rest of the world to deal with. Because that's what localization means. The benefits of globalization are that wars are less likely due to our increased interdependency, and second, that these externalities become problems that the whole world (a) wants to deal with and (b) can more effectively deal with. And its not just limited to trade deals, but to political and economic unionization. Now obviously there are some harms to globalization, and those can be reduced - wasteful international shipping of certain goods and services that could instead be provided natively, but other than that there are considerably more benefits especially to our planet as a whole than there are drawbacks. And secondly, catastrophic decline is also deeply unlikely for the simple reason that there IS a "magic fix" for the climate and it is in the form of geoengineering solutions. Reflective mirrors in space, placed at the lagrange point, have proven that a 1% dimming of the sun equates to roughly a 1C drop in temperature. The same effect can likely be replicated in part by cloud seeding the atmosphere, but without the deleterious effects of spraying sulphur particles. And this amongst many other geoengineering ideas, but those being the principle ones which can immediately save the planet. Now it still remains to be seen whether world leaders will wise up to this obvious solution and not be intimidated by, frankly, deeply irresponsible climate scientists who continue to claim geoengineering is "too dangerous" especially when we are merely talking about minor global dimming which we have largely already experimented with thanks to freighters crossing the ocean and spewing their reflective pollutants into the atmosphere (thanks to Hansen et al's work). And especially when the alternative is to rely on our current international political system to radically reduce CO2 emissions at such an extreme degree that no sane person considers it to be politically feasible at this point. I'm sorry but the idea that supposedly credentialed and intelligent researchers should congregate around a solution that they know is politically impossible is stupid. You guys can't continue to naively pretend the world will suddenly get their act together. If you know politicians aren't acting fast enough, and that its extremely unlikely that they will act even faster going forward, then the LEAST RISKY OPTION that you should be pushing for is geoengineering, or AT LEAST for more research into our geoengineering options.