Your stance on climate change

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think that the observed rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is both anthropogenic and responsible for a rise in average temperatures and various other downstream consequences, and if humanity continues to emit carbon dioxide at its current rate, both humanity's collective quality of life and the diodiversity of life will suffer; although the planet will not be "harmed" nor is the survival of humanity at stake. Some of this change is going to happen regardless, but this is no reason not to act now. Green austerity that relies on rationing or taxation is best avoided (as is obsession about reducing population numbers). Ending electrical emissions are probably the easiest part of the puzzle to solve (most countries could entirely eliminate them within the next two decades with current technology, even without nuclear) and so anybody who believes that nuclear is an easy solve for the problem is kidding themselves. The mining of thermal coal should be phased out worldwide in the next decade or so, and areas dependent on fossil fuel extraction should be prepared to transition away from them (also, we don't want any Green Thatcherism so no abandoning workers to their fates)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Can someone who voted for the 30/12/0 years options please make their case in the comments? I hate being an "anti-science" guy, but I genuinely don't understand what the science is telling us here. You've got people like Biden saying we've got until 2050, Cortez is saying we have until 2030, and Andrew Yang is telling everyone that it's already too late and we need to head for the hills. I've studied climate change at my university but we only really delved into the causes (and how we know it's caused by us), not the timetable it's operating on. I have to say, it looks pretty stupid when multiple candidates say "I believe the science" and then they all offer up completely different interpretations for what the science is telling us.

the issue is it's not as if there's some binary choice between "everything is fine" and "end of civilization". Like, even if all carbon emissions were to stop tomorrow, you'd still see some warming that we would have to adapt for. Ignoring for a moment potential climate triggers like in the clathrate gun hypothesis, the basic rule would be the more GHGs are emitted the more we'll see bad effects on humanity.