PS5 will be a "greener" console than PS4

[EricHiggin]

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

The thing is it's become clear that climate change isn't the house on fire it was said to be so long ago. The world should be ashes by now, or heavily flooded, yet isn't, and isn't even close to that.

:looks at career:
Except fires are getting more intense and more frequent.

It's not always about what you can see right in front of you. Nasa can see the planet is greener than in the past. So more fires yet the planet remains to green even more so. Is that a problem?

How intense and how frequent will they continue to get, and at what rate exactly? How many fires is too many? If we get carbon back down to past levels, will it stop naturally occurring fires?

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

Imagine if we tried to enact the same kind of policies that are trying to be enacted now, like 40 years ago. Just think of what that would have done to the worldwide economy back then and where the world would be now because of it.

Why do people think going green somehow has to be at the detriment of the economy? You can initiate greener initiatives and profit greatly from it.
Nor does going green mean banning the production of all CO2 or other gases anyway.

Have you not read the new green deal? Tell me that will at the very least keep things the same, if not make them better for the foreseeable future.

There are plenty of things people could do to benefit themselves and/or profit, yet they don't, and we don't force them to either.

If you mean efficiency in general, then yes, that's fine for the most part, but solving a pollution problem with more pollution isn't a legitimate answer, so we're told, because the end is upon us, apparently. Otherwise allowing another say, 20 years, for renewable and carbon tech to reach maturity and beyond, would be acceptable.

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

Also look at the tech we have now to start mitigating it. What if we can wait another 20 years for a solution that solves things in the same amount of time, or less, and way more efficiently, than if we started 40 yeas ago, all without having to deal with the hardship?

I think you are trying to hint towards carbon capture technologies? If so, well. That's a gamble. You don't gamble trillions of lives, you just don't.

Then no decision can be made period. Going with or against climate change now is a gamble.

If you make significant changes with a significant cost to the people, and it's wrong and the change was temporary or less drastic than predicted, you're going to have a lot of upset people. If you don't make changes and it's as bad or worse than you thought, you're going to have a lot of upset people.

This is complain and cancel culture we're living in here.

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

To say that's a stupid idea because, 'what if we can't fix the problem in time', doesn't make much sense based on our past and our capabilities. We solved the ozone problem for the most part, we went to the moon within a decade, and are seriously planning to go to mars, and eventually have human colonies there, and yet we don't think we'll able to deal with the CO2 problem here?

And yet... Many denied that there was a growing ozone problem, infact it's generally from the same political side that denies climate change.

But do you know how we solved the Ozone problem? The world got together, the world made a plan, the world enacted said plan.
- Do you know what the world has been doing on climate change? They have been taking a similar approach, CFC's weren't phased out overnight you know, it's a process.

Traveling to the moon or mars is not on the same scale as trying to capture decades worth of industrial CO2 across an entire planet, so lets not pretend it is

Really because this says it was conservatives who saved the world.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/conservatives-ozone-montreal-protocol-1.4409482

Well when the majority of the world has reached consensus about climate change, it will happen as before, but until then, it's business as per usual.

Traveling was the lead up, and planning to have colonies there was the point. Those colonies will not be self sustaining for a considerable period of time, if ever, and will require being supplied from Earth. If climate change is such a problem, and it's now or never, yet it's not being attended to, then why are people wasting time with future plans in general, let alone space travel and planetary colonization?

Pemalite said:

EricHiggin said:

What about the people who have to deal with the heat, drought, or floods up until then? Well it's going to happen anyway for some, so regardless there's that, plus a ton of other people would have to pay for it one way or another if we get serious about it now, so who decides who pays and who doesn't? Who decides to take action now after all these years of 'not doing enough', instead of waiting for tech to do what it does and 'take us to the promised land', when it's renewable and carbon capture tech's time to shine?

I do deal with heat, drought and floods. I am in multiple rescue agencies.
The data on those are... That such events are becoming more frequent and more intense.

Everyone should pay. And we can't take action soon enough.

Same with gun violence, but is it the guns, the politics, the media, the people, etc?

I disagree. I'd say for those who don't pay now, if man made climate change is proven to be as some proclaim, then they pay more later on to make up for it, one way or another. That way if the 'climate deniers' are right, they don't need to lose anything for no reason. If they are wrong, the people fully on board who saved the planet, get to profit from their investment, as you stated earlier.