Thank you very much! 🌻

Thank you! 🌻

Thank you!!

Thank you!

Er, you left out the part about destroying the rule of law, opening a floodgates to unheard of corruption, abusing human rights, coddling and pardoning dictators and warlords, and launching full-on assault on democracy. Etc. A shameful headline

Depends how they are grown. Most are grown on farms, so they're an agricultural crop like food. Sustaining both rural economies and human sensory needs. But, agreed, could be more sustainable. Plastic, on the other hand, has a 1000+ year legacy of waste

Accusing a fellow climate activist and thinker of not "understanding where we are or where we are headed", of offering "false" optimism (your words), and claiming that this is a result of their background is...less than helpful. But carry on building the coalition

I think you're misattributing "false optimism" in this discussion

no she does not -- if you know her work, you'll know what an absurd accusation this is 😂

agreed

He's a top dog at Facebook, so no surprises here

You move in this message from "what the military are modeling" to "will not". From model to statement of certainty. To many of us, perhaps misguided fools all, this seems like a rhetorical move that deflates the imperative for immediate action. If inevitable, why bother?

The relative probability of different climate trajectories is, of course, not known with full certainty. That does not mean that those acting in good faith with different probability estimates are lacking in understanding or qualifications.

"This is what happens when non-climate scientists write about the climate crisis without really understanding where we are or where we are headed". Perhaps engage with the arguments rather than leading with an attack based on disciplinary affiliation and a claim about lack of understanding?

Yes, I have read hundreds of climate papers from the primary literature. Thank you for the advice. It's my read that belief in the inevitability of collapse is not a consensus position within the climate science community. Nor is attacking experts who are not climate scientists for daring to speak

You've literally written that "Personally I think societal and economic collapse by 2050 is now all but inevitable"
The narrative of inevitability is, I believe, false

This is today's reality. Let's make clear that tomorrow can be different, but only with concerted action. Attacking writers who offer nuanced analysis that draw extensively on experience and quotes/interviews with leading players in climate policy for not being climate scientists seems...meh