• 0 Posts
  • 13 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle







  • Record breaking temperatures do not account for anything before records start. Obviously.

    Firstly setting new records repeatedly for records that have existed for a 100+ years is still extremely concerning. I don’t know how you think this is actually somehow a rebuttal of what I said. Additionally we have average temperature and environmental conditions going back millions of years through ice core and geologic records.

    There are no numbers in my comment which should be backed up by evidence. These are an example.

    80% and 20% are numbers. My point is your “example” is made up and hence meaningless. It’s as meaningful as me giving you an example where all work that is dont to pay for that additional cost is done through green means.

    What I’ve used is called conditional logic mostly.

    What you’ve done is not understand how conditional logic works as your IF/THEN conditional statement is not based on reality and is speaking purely hypothetically. I agree that in your made up reality that doesn’t exist, this made up condition would not be reasonable.

    About the rest - I do realize that connecting money (as the universal equivalent) to energy and energy (from all sources) to pollution may be too complex for you.

    Apparently the whole concept of reading may be too complex for you as you clearly seem to lack the ability to comprehend what you’ve read. Dirty solutions have environmental impact that ultimately has a monetary cost to mitigate. Just because you don’t pay for it at purchase does not mean there is not a monetary cost.


  • I mean, not as if 40C was unheard of in the Mediterranean?..

    Record breaking temperatures are by definition unheard of. What the Mediterranean is experiencing is not normal by any definition.

    When you pay more for a green alternative to something very much not green, you may be causing lots of bad things indirectly.

    The not green versions are also costing us by costing the environment.

    I mean, if a thing itself is 100% green energy\resource\process, then money you pay for it are maybe 20% green and 80% pretty much brown. So if it costs twice and you pay for that, you may be creating a demand for dirtier production just to soothe your conscience about global warming.

    This makes absolutely not sense at all. You have absolutely no evidence or data to back up these numbers you made up. You’ve essentially made a bunch of false assumptions and then used those false assumptions to then validate your inaccurate claim.