sen-no-sen wrote:
What you explain to us in more than 9900 messages (!) Is that putting an end to the use of fossil fuels would be more harmful than the RCA itself.
To this we can answer the following:
1) There is not enough data to support or disprove such a claim.
in itself, this sentence is itself problematic, because if these data do not exist, how can we then conclude on what to do?
Can you imagine if the vaccination campaign had been decided "without sufficient data to know whether the vaccines are dangerous or not"? already with data, that's a problem, so I'm not telling you if we didn't have any!
but that said, the data, we have it, just have to look at it! all the studies quantify the cost of the RC at a few% of the GDP at most, and it is obvious that removing fossils in 30 years would cost much more than a few% of the GDP. It's just mind-blowing how people refuse to acknowledge this kind of evidence.
2) None of the projections serious do not take into account such a drop in fossil consumption in the future.
simply because what I'm saying is a truth that everyone knows deep down, it's not revolutionary: no we will not reduce emissions quickly enough to stay below 1,5 ° C, so stop breaking our hearts ... with this