6 ms·

When discussing environmental stuff, often activists will say that I "deny climate change". I understand what they mean (that I don't believe the risk of catast

by guscost 11y ago

When discussing environmental stuff, often activists will say that I "deny climate change". I understand what they mean (that I don't believe the risk of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is grave enough to demand government intervention) but I still have to point out that we live on a rocky planet in space, where everything including the climate constantly changes. You might be alarmed by a very specific change like this one, and you might want to do everything possible to stop it. That's completely understandable and I wish you success in your advocacy. But the way I see it, change is perhaps the only constant feature of our world, and change absolutely is going to mean death of a bunch of coral sometimes. Go far enough with the rhetoric and it sounds like an argument that the climate shouldn't change, which is futile. I hope the mainstream environmentalism will someday "grow up" to a point where people understand that change is inevitable, and that as long as we exist we actively participate in the change. Then rather than setting arbitrary "natural" criteria and bemoaning corruption like depressed Platonists, and rather than starting witch hunts after people, we can focus on how that change should be planned for and what actually can or should be done to manage it.

ocschwar 11y ago
If you want to wallow in ignorance about how and why "the climate constantly changes" and what that means for our civilization, that is your prerogative. But don't expect to be treated with respect. You're making a pitiful excuse to dismiss trends that threaten trillions of dollars of inherited infrastructure investment that is at risk of being made useless, and that threaten the comfort and safety of billions of people.
- guscost 11y ago
  > trends that ... threaten the comfort and safety of billions of people Again I don't agree that the threat indicated by these trends is as grave as you claim. I agree there is strong evidence of a grave threat to this coral ecosystem, and Australian coastal tourism.
  - ageofwant 11y ago
    And what are the consequences of you being wrong ?
    - guscost 11y ago
      The answer you're leading toward is "something akin to apocalypse", and I get it, it's scary. On the other hand have you really taken enough time to consider the consequences if your faction is wrong? Have you acknowledged that there could be bad consequences in that case too? Typically I hear "we would be taking better care of the environment anyway so win-win" but nobody ever adds "by granting loads of new power to governments and big institutions, which may or may not be corrupted just as big and powerful institutions have been corrupted throughout history" and that is a significant detail! Out of curiosity, I'm interested to know which of the following descriptions you consider more accurate: a) The climate/environment situation is exactly as bad as the mainstream warnings indicate. The only hope at this point is if we can start a large long-term centrally planned project to administer the solution as decided by the most prominent or respected thinkers. a) The climate/environment situation is not as dire as mainstream warnings indicate. At least some of the activism is motivated by fear, when people notice this or that smaller problem, get very scared by warnings of much bigger problems to come, and make the not-completely-rational choice to give up freedom for the promise of safety.
      - cromulent 11y ago
        I wouldn't characterize the situation in either of those ways. I think we could all agree that non-renewable energy sources will run out at some point. Hence the name :). Or, to be more precise, the extraction of non-renewables will cost more than their utility. So, at some point we have to transition: first to a mix, and eventually to renewables only. I would venture that we could also agree that those who make their money from non-renewables have an interest in delaying this transition as long as possible. That's what I would do. So, there will need to be some sort of agreement to transition, and incentives to do so. This doesn't necessarily need to be a "large long-term centrally planned project to administer the solution as decided by the most prominent or respected thinkers" - you can use economic incentives to leverage the market to do so. Well, you can in one country at a time fairly easily, but globally - it's tricky. If (as it seems) use of non-renewables is also a cumulative pollutant and could cause large costs to society globally, then the smart thing to do would be to accelerate this process. This doesn't mean giving up "freedom for the promise of safety" - it means, again, using economic incentives, but balanced against the costs. This already happens, all the time. We aren't giving up freedoms. In my opinion, anyway. We don't need to give governments loads of new power. We need to agree this is what we want and instruct our governments to do it. They already tax, rebate, and subsidize many things (e.g corn crops). The difficulty is the tragedy of the commons - and that's what all the arguments are about. Lots of countries, lots of different incentives, different histories, etc.
rwallace 11y ago
Nobody is suggesting that it's either necessary or possible for the climate to never change at all, even slightly. The point being made is that climate change of too large a magnitude, occurring too quickly, is damaging, potentially even catastrophic, so we need to mitigate the change in order to mitigate the damage.

by guscost 11y ago

ocschwar 11y ago

If you want to wallow in ignorance about how and why "the climate constantly changes" and what that means for our civilization, that is your prerogative. But don't expect to be treated with respect. You're making a pitiful excuse to dismiss trends that threaten trillions of dollars of inherited infrastructure investment that is at risk of being made useless, and that threaten the comfort and safety of billions of people.

guscost 11y ago
> trends that ... threaten the comfort and safety of billions of people Again I don't agree that the threat indicated by these trends is as grave as you claim. I agree there is strong evidence of a grave threat to this coral ecosystem, and Australian coastal tourism.
- ageofwant 11y ago
  And what are the consequences of you being wrong ?
  - guscost 11y ago
    The answer you're leading toward is "something akin to apocalypse", and I get it, it's scary. On the other hand have you really taken enough time to consider the consequences if your faction is wrong? Have you acknowledged that there could be bad consequences in that case too? Typically I hear "we would be taking better care of the environment anyway so win-win" but nobody ever adds "by granting loads of new power to governments and big institutions, which may or may not be corrupted just as big and powerful institutions have been corrupted throughout history" and that is a significant detail! Out of curiosity, I'm interested to know which of the following descriptions you consider more accurate: a) The climate/environment situation is exactly as bad as the mainstream warnings indicate. The only hope at this point is if we can start a large long-term centrally planned project to administer the solution as decided by the most prominent or respected thinkers. a) The climate/environment situation is not as dire as mainstream warnings indicate. At least some of the activism is motivated by fear, when people notice this or that smaller problem, get very scared by warnings of much bigger problems to come, and make the not-completely-rational choice to give up freedom for the promise of safety.
    - cromulent 11y ago
      I wouldn't characterize the situation in either of those ways. I think we could all agree that non-renewable energy sources will run out at some point. Hence the name :). Or, to be more precise, the extraction of non-renewables will cost more than their utility. So, at some point we have to transition: first to a mix, and eventually to renewables only. I would venture that we could also agree that those who make their money from non-renewables have an interest in delaying this transition as long as possible. That's what I would do. So, there will need to be some sort of agreement to transition, and incentives to do so. This doesn't necessarily need to be a "large long-term centrally planned project to administer the solution as decided by the most prominent or respected thinkers" - you can use economic incentives to leverage the market to do so. Well, you can in one country at a time fairly easily, but globally - it's tricky. If (as it seems) use of non-renewables is also a cumulative pollutant and could cause large costs to society globally, then the smart thing to do would be to accelerate this process. This doesn't mean giving up "freedom for the promise of safety" - it means, again, using economic incentives, but balanced against the costs. This already happens, all the time. We aren't giving up freedoms. In my opinion, anyway. We don't need to give governments loads of new power. We need to agree this is what we want and instruct our governments to do it. They already tax, rebate, and subsidize many things (e.g corn crops). The difficulty is the tragedy of the commons - and that's what all the arguments are about. Lots of countries, lots of different incentives, different histories, etc.

rwallace 11y ago

Nobody is suggesting that it's either necessary or possible for the climate to never change at all, even slightly. The point being made is that climate change of too large a magnitude, occurring too quickly, is damaging, potentially even catastrophic, so we need to mitigate the change in order to mitigate the damage.