6 ms·

I am against climate change people because they invariably suggest that the governments should do something. Often this is a good opportunity for the government

by tn13 11y ago

I am against climate change people because they invariably suggest that the governments should do something. Often this is a good opportunity for the governments to grab more power and take away our freedoms. In my opinion this can bring more misery to humanity than the climate change. For example Indian government is pushing Solar power without must thought. Billions of taxpayer money is being spend on solar panels which we are not sure if they will work. Same amount of money could have produced more energy through conventional means, supported more industry and helped few more million people get out of poverty, I am not sure that by using Solar panels Indian government has saved million people in future. I think a small invention like a floppy disk might have saved more trees that all government efforts put together. Environment might be changing but I would bet on people like Elon Musk any day than the government.

Angostura 11y ago
> I am against climate change people because they invariably suggest that the governments should do something. I'm not sure that you are aware of just how ludicrous, this sounds. Do you have the same complaint when someone's house is burning down and people suggest that firefighters 'should do something'?
- topynate 11y ago
  Is the purpose of a government to do something about climate change in the same way that the purpose of a firefighter is to do something about a burning house? Why?
  - Angostura 11y ago
    Citizens assign functions to governments that are impractical for individuals or markets to handle. It doesn't make sense for everyone to buy a fire truck and there isn't a good business to be made from putting out fires. A classic case where individuals may band together to invoke government is is where a 'tragedy of the commons' situation is threatened. Left to its own devices, it is perfectly rational in the short term for an individual or business to continue polluting, over-fishing, deforesting or using the atmosphere/oceans as an infinite waste removal resource. In the medium and long term it isn't such a good idea and governments provide the least worst mechanism that we have for citizens to collectively enforce actions that can protect people, society or the environment.
    - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
      >there isn't a good business to be made from putting out fires. // This used to be how it worked, at least in the UK. It's probably quite a good business; there I'd a question of mutual destruction for the rich if they just let poor people's houses burn but also I feel there's a factor of social morality at play too. It is socialism, at least in part, that has brought democratised healthcare and schooling, firefighting and policing. Profit motive thankfully isn't there only social driver.
  - js8 11y ago
    If government has any "useful" purpose, then it's coordination. In the two examples given, it's coordination to avoid negative effects of economic externalities. In the case of firefighting, the negative externality is that burning house may present danger to other houses nearby it. In the case of global warming, the negative externality is CO2 pollution from burning of fossil fuels.
- reitanqild 11y ago
  This is a bad counterargument: if someones house are burning we can all see it. In the case of global warming and specially AGW you have to trust scientists and politicians and news, which is often smart, but not always.
  - reitanqild 11y ago
    Someone care to help me spell out my wrongness here. I don't care about stupid points so no need to upvote but I do care about if I am wrong without realizing.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      (I didn't downvote) You don't have to trust politicians, and with AGW it's probably a good idea to ingore politicians. You also don't have to trust news and media outlets. All science reporting sucks, and this is mostly true of reporting around AGW. That leaves the scientists. One one side you have a very small number of scientists who don't believe that climate change is happening and that climate change is a result of human activity. And when you look at those scientists you see people who were previously employed (ie, paid for work) by tobacco companies to spread fear and doubt about tobacco (and those techniques were so successful that even today, when we know most lung cancer is caused by smoking, we have people who don't understand what the actual risks of smoking are) or who are paid to do similar activity. That's not real science, that's not testing the data and testing the claims. There's a very much larger group of scientists who believe climate change is happening, and who believe that human activity is probably a cause. There's some discussion in this group about the science, but that's good, it's how science works, and that debate should not be misused to say that AGW isn't real or that climate change is not happening. (And sadly, honest scientific debate is often misused to claim that climate change isn't happening.)
      - reitanqild 11y ago
        Thanks, I was trying to make a point about the example not being analogous but in hindsight I guess I should have dropped that piece of pedantry.
js8 11y ago
Cool, I am against climate change people too - pretty much all the people who release too much CO2 from fossil fuels. I am not sure however how are we going to prevent them doing that without collective action, any suggestions?
sirtaj 11y ago
I'm in Delhi right now, a city almost literally choking to death thanks in part to the coal-fired thermal power plants in/near the city. Every time I hear concerns that the environment should come second to development I have to wonder whether being able to breathe is even a "development" factor in these people's minds.

by tn13 11y ago

Angostura 11y ago

> I am against climate change people because they invariably suggest that the governments should do something. I'm not sure that you are aware of just how ludicrous, this sounds. Do you have the same complaint when someone's house is burning down and people suggest that firefighters 'should do something'?

topynate 11y ago
Is the purpose of a government to do something about climate change in the same way that the purpose of a firefighter is to do something about a burning house? Why?
- Angostura 11y ago
  Citizens assign functions to governments that are impractical for individuals or markets to handle. It doesn't make sense for everyone to buy a fire truck and there isn't a good business to be made from putting out fires. A classic case where individuals may band together to invoke government is is where a 'tragedy of the commons' situation is threatened. Left to its own devices, it is perfectly rational in the short term for an individual or business to continue polluting, over-fishing, deforesting or using the atmosphere/oceans as an infinite waste removal resource. In the medium and long term it isn't such a good idea and governments provide the least worst mechanism that we have for citizens to collectively enforce actions that can protect people, society or the environment.
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    >there isn't a good business to be made from putting out fires. // This used to be how it worked, at least in the UK. It's probably quite a good business; there I'd a question of mutual destruction for the rich if they just let poor people's houses burn but also I feel there's a factor of social morality at play too. It is socialism, at least in part, that has brought democratised healthcare and schooling, firefighting and policing. Profit motive thankfully isn't there only social driver.
- js8 11y ago
  If government has any "useful" purpose, then it's coordination. In the two examples given, it's coordination to avoid negative effects of economic externalities. In the case of firefighting, the negative externality is that burning house may present danger to other houses nearby it. In the case of global warming, the negative externality is CO2 pollution from burning of fossil fuels.
reitanqild 11y ago
This is a bad counterargument: if someones house are burning we can all see it. In the case of global warming and specially AGW you have to trust scientists and politicians and news, which is often smart, but not always.
- reitanqild 11y ago
  Someone care to help me spell out my wrongness here. I don't care about stupid points so no need to upvote but I do care about if I am wrong without realizing.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    (I didn't downvote) You don't have to trust politicians, and with AGW it's probably a good idea to ingore politicians. You also don't have to trust news and media outlets. All science reporting sucks, and this is mostly true of reporting around AGW. That leaves the scientists. One one side you have a very small number of scientists who don't believe that climate change is happening and that climate change is a result of human activity. And when you look at those scientists you see people who were previously employed (ie, paid for work) by tobacco companies to spread fear and doubt about tobacco (and those techniques were so successful that even today, when we know most lung cancer is caused by smoking, we have people who don't understand what the actual risks of smoking are) or who are paid to do similar activity. That's not real science, that's not testing the data and testing the claims. There's a very much larger group of scientists who believe climate change is happening, and who believe that human activity is probably a cause. There's some discussion in this group about the science, but that's good, it's how science works, and that debate should not be misused to say that AGW isn't real or that climate change is not happening. (And sadly, honest scientific debate is often misused to claim that climate change isn't happening.)
    - reitanqild 11y ago
      Thanks, I was trying to make a point about the example not being analogous but in hindsight I guess I should have dropped that piece of pedantry.

js8 11y ago

Cool, I am against climate change people too - pretty much all the people who release too much CO2 from fossil fuels. I am not sure however how are we going to prevent them doing that without collective action, any suggestions?

sirtaj 11y ago

I'm in Delhi right now, a city almost literally choking to death thanks in part to the coal-fired thermal power plants in/near the city. Every time I hear concerns that the environment should come second to development I have to wonder whether being able to breathe is even a "development" factor in these people's minds.