7 ms·

But what if climate change isn't real and all we end up with is a cleaner, healthier and quieter environment to live in? /s

afarrell 9y ago
If climate change isn’t real, there’s no good reason for us to cause the unemployment, crime, and suicides that will result from dismantling the main industry of America’s 4th largest city (Houston).
- vilmosi 9y ago
  Yes, there is. >>> cleaner, healthier and quieter environment to live in
- VikingCoder 9y ago
  That's inevitable. Will it be replaced by nuclear or solar is basically the only question.
  - tdb7893 9y ago
    Nuclear has been around for a long time and has never caught on. Barring large changes in public opinion or price it's probably on the way out, too
  - afarrell 9y ago
    Unless we can mine enough lithium to make grid-scale battery farms viable or can make large-scale flywheels work, both forms have issues with demand response that are currently being solved by natural gas.
    - VikingCoder 9y ago
      Or we use electricity to make gas, and then burn the gas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Hmm, the health of the whole planet vs. one large city with an insufficiently diverse economy? Decades' worth of empirical evidence and analysis from thousands of scientists filling thousands of pages vs. hand-waving predictions of economic doom? I agree that dismantling the fossil fuel industry would result in some economic dislocation, but it really feels like the advocates of that position expect to have their worries just taken at face value, while simultaneously expecting everyone to ignore the lamentable record of the fossil fuel industry in both pollution and obfuscation. I'm sorry, but I'm running increasingly low on patience for people who work in this sector. Yesterday I was reading that coal miners who are being offered free training to transfer out of the coal industry are choosing to study coal mining technology in the belief that a coal resurgence is going to happen any day now. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-effect-coal-retraining-insight/awaiting-trumps-coal-comeback-miners-reject-retraining-idUSKBN1D14G0 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-effect-coal-retrain... I'm strongly in favor of policies that would mitigate or alleviate such people's economic problems, but not in favor of propping up an industry that's putting everyone's health at risk.
melling 9y ago
According to this economist in this TED Talk, the money could save and improve millions of other lives: https://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities https://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_prioriti... It really doesn’t help when people aren’t informed about what other people are arguing. Many Republicans, for example, think the damage is manageable, and they’d rather deal with the consequences later. You simply are considered an alarmist for bringing up climate change.
yongjik 9y ago
It would have been a nice quip 20 years ago, but we have amassed so many evidences that this is now more or less a meaningless thought exercise. I might as well ask "But what if hurricanes aren't real and we end up building a better sewage system for nothing?"
- mikeash 9y ago
  The difference is that half of the American electorate doesn’t deny the existence of hurricanes. If they did, that hypothetical could be useful.
  - dmix 9y ago
    Half? That's a bit of a broad generalisation. I doubt 90% of voters have an informed opinion on the matter worthy of critiquing their position. Nor is indifference from voters equal to active denial. People love to extrapolate every position of Trumps and apply it to half the country, and usually well beyond that to all 'conservatives' globally'.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      Climate change denial was a core Republican value long before Trump. I don't see why having an informed opinion would be a requirement here. Climate change denial is uninformed almost by definition, but as long as the opinion is strongly held (which it is by a huge number on the American right) that doesn't really matter.
      - notyourday 9y ago
        No, denial of humans as the source of global warming has been a core value of lots of people, including of scientists that as late as 1970s were claiming that all their data indicated that humans were causing global cooling. The science was settled at that time as well.
        mikeash 9y ago

afarrell 9y ago

If climate change isn’t real, there’s no good reason for us to cause the unemployment, crime, and suicides that will result from dismantling the main industry of America’s 4th largest city (Houston).

vilmosi 9y ago
Yes, there is. >>> cleaner, healthier and quieter environment to live in
VikingCoder 9y ago
That's inevitable. Will it be replaced by nuclear or solar is basically the only question.
- tdb7893 9y ago
  Nuclear has been around for a long time and has never caught on. Barring large changes in public opinion or price it's probably on the way out, too
- afarrell 9y ago
  Unless we can mine enough lithium to make grid-scale battery farms viable or can make large-scale flywheels work, both forms have issues with demand response that are currently being solved by natural gas.
  - VikingCoder 9y ago
    Or we use electricity to make gas, and then burn the gas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas
anigbrowl 9y ago
Hmm, the health of the whole planet vs. one large city with an insufficiently diverse economy? Decades' worth of empirical evidence and analysis from thousands of scientists filling thousands of pages vs. hand-waving predictions of economic doom? I agree that dismantling the fossil fuel industry would result in some economic dislocation, but it really feels like the advocates of that position expect to have their worries just taken at face value, while simultaneously expecting everyone to ignore the lamentable record of the fossil fuel industry in both pollution and obfuscation. I'm sorry, but I'm running increasingly low on patience for people who work in this sector. Yesterday I was reading that coal miners who are being offered free training to transfer out of the coal industry are choosing to study coal mining technology in the belief that a coal resurgence is going to happen any day now. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-effect-coal-retraining-insight/awaiting-trumps-coal-comeback-miners-reject-retraining-idUSKBN1D14G0 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-effect-coal-retrain... I'm strongly in favor of policies that would mitigate or alleviate such people's economic problems, but not in favor of propping up an industry that's putting everyone's health at risk.

melling 9y ago

According to this economist in this TED Talk, the money could save and improve millions of other lives: https://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities https://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_prioriti... It really doesn’t help when people aren’t informed about what other people are arguing. Many Republicans, for example, think the damage is manageable, and they’d rather deal with the consequences later. You simply are considered an alarmist for bringing up climate change.

yongjik 9y ago

It would have been a nice quip 20 years ago, but we have amassed so many evidences that this is now more or less a meaningless thought exercise. I might as well ask "But what if hurricanes aren't real and we end up building a better sewage system for nothing?"

mikeash 9y ago
The difference is that half of the American electorate doesn’t deny the existence of hurricanes. If they did, that hypothetical could be useful.
- dmix 9y ago
  Half? That's a bit of a broad generalisation. I doubt 90% of voters have an informed opinion on the matter worthy of critiquing their position. Nor is indifference from voters equal to active denial. People love to extrapolate every position of Trumps and apply it to half the country, and usually well beyond that to all 'conservatives' globally'.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Climate change denial was a core Republican value long before Trump. I don't see why having an informed opinion would be a requirement here. Climate change denial is uninformed almost by definition, but as long as the opinion is strongly held (which it is by a huge number on the American right) that doesn't really matter.
    - notyourday 9y ago
      No, denial of humans as the source of global warming has been a core value of lots of people, including of scientists that as late as 1970s were claiming that all their data indicated that humans were causing global cooling. The science was settled at that time as well.
      - mikeash 9y ago