As I say below the comment you're replying to, your response is unscientific catastrophizing that needs data to back it up. We've already seen massive carbon reductions in the USA without taxing energy prices such that they would harm or kill poor people.

>I actually was debating this with a friend so vigorously that he coded a program to compare yhe wins of betting randomly or on lagging possible outcomes of a randomly generated number. Betting on lagging outcomes brought more wins.

Can you elaborate more on what you mean? I think I misunderstand you somehow as it seems to me betting on lagging outcomes cannot outperform betting randomly in the long run or the outcome is not random (or there’s a coding / concept error).

>Professional sports is not quite random though.

Absolutely.

I think the UK gets a lot colder, and then probably a million other things- mass extinction of gulf-stream flora/fauna and such?

That seems like a short-sighted rebuttal when the alternative is we all die and we kill nearly everything else and also suffer way more.

we would save about 402.30 gallons of fuel per hour

We have the 5th highest median income in the world, behind Luxembourg, UAE, Norway, and Switzerland. Median is insensitive to outliers, and 3 of the 4 countries that beat us have some notable asterisks.

We have objectively high wages. America has a shit ton of shitty problems, but across the board we have money.

Don't be sorry. It is sickening that we exceed all other countries in this.

It's actually not difficult to differentiate, it is just a rather long and boring explanation. If you really are interested in the topic I can only recommend 'Climate Change is a Nightmare' by UpIsNotJump. It is not highly scientific and does a good job at explaining the topic in a rather short, easy to access format. It also debunks statements like 'we are just in a warmer part of the cycle' etc.

I actually was debating this with a friend so vigorously that he coded a program to compare yhe wins of betting randomly or on lagging possible outcomes of a randomly generated number. Betting on lagging outcomes brought more wins.

Professional sports is not quite random though.

What happens if the Gulf Stream shuts down

More like 3,5C. You forget a lot of important pledges like China 's sudden 2060 pledge. But yes, much more has to be done to reach 1,5 or 2. We're on 1.2-1.3C rn.

It would be cool to see a radial bracket where the area/country in each ring is determined by the odds they have to win the World Cup or to advance to the next round. It would be a cool way to show Croatia and moroccos success as well as many other upsets.

Does anyone know what program is used to create these brackets?

The axes should be switched. The way they are presented now appears to suggest that health expenditure results from life expectancy rather than the other way around and that USA gets a better result than other countries (shorter life but more spending!), while the takeaway should be the opposite.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Clicked on this thinking it was going to show me breakfast choices by countries attending world cup.

This needs to be contextualized

What is the expected demand over the same time period for each region?

For all we know the power demand growth rate out paces these capacity increases. Though I doubt it, it is an additional line needed to actually determine the impact of this capacity increase

[deleted]

The 2022 World Cup and honor don't go together.

>We have to drastically cut and that means giving things up.

You're not wrong, but I'm not sure you understand how tightly society is tied to fossil fuels. Severe cuts that would actually move the needle wouldn't just be people putting on a sweater in winter and giving up air conditioning in the summer. It would literally mean that billions of people would have to give up eating as we try to grow crops without the use of fossil fuels-based fertilizers.

I’ve camped in the National Forests in both of those states. Definite ‘squatch vibes.

That's not true, the USA has had drastic decreases in carbon emissions over the last two decades in spite of not having these kinds of policies that would specifically harm the poorest in our society. How is someone supposed to warm their home in the winter or fill their car with gas for work when you've taxed energy so drastically?

I am sick and tired of the unscientific catastrophizing around this topic.

Your clearly not thinking of the effect of not doing it are you

And doing nothing would harm poor, middle, and rich, and kill millions upon millions more.

I'm not disputing that. Just the start of this was at the end of an unusual 500-year period.