zlacker

>>LinuxB+(OP)
The biggest takeaway here for me is that we collectively achieved something previously considered impossible: by making different behavioral choices, as a species, we achieved the largest cut in CO2 emissions in 75 years.

It's tragic that only the threat of a deadly disease could compel such a change, but perhaps we may find other levers to help us achieve such widespread beneficial changes in the future?

>>just_s+nm
We did not simply make "behavioral choices". Whole swathes of humanity were ordered indoors! It was achieved at untold cost (actually, much greater than the trillions of dollars that have been given away already by governments) that will be paid by generations to come. Only people who were lucky to hold a job that wasn't affected made a conscious decision to cut down.

I am willing to bet that come 2022 or so, emissions will rebound and exceed peaks as people 'catch up' on travel, including simply visiting near and dear ones, that they have missed out on.

>>rmk+AD
> It was achieved at untold cost

This is just evidence of what we already know: our current society is unsustainable.

> will be paid by generations to come

I think you're pretty optimistic about how the future will develop given that we have not only just demonstrated our society is unsustainable, but that we are not capable of making serious progress towards a sustainable society.

Large portions of are planet are soon to become uninhabitable by humans. Major disruptions in our food supply are likely not that far off. The idea that we need to get back to "business as usual" means these things are all the more certain.

>>baron_+C31
In ecological terms, we are an invasive species without a predator multiplying exponentially.

We either accept reality and live and adapt to the limits imposed by nature or prepare to live in permanent war for resources.

>>29athr+o91
Are we an invasive species?

wiki: "An invasive species is a non-native species that has become naturalized and negatively alters its new environment."

Seems about right.

No predator. Also yes.

Multiplying exponentially. In the past century, yes. It seems to be slowing down, and so one might argue that it is a logistic growth.

If we exceed the limits of the environment we either suffer massive problems and eventually a die-off, or we manage to invent some new tech that expands the carrying capacity of Earth.

This is all pretty much factually correct. So, can someone explain the down votes?