4 ms·

I'm not quite in your friend's boat, but I don't worry at all about Climate Change. I buy that the Earth is warming and that it's likely human-driven. But I'm n

I'm not quite in your friend's boat, but I don't worry at all about Climate Change. I buy that the Earth is warming and that it's likely human-driven. But I'm not convinced addressing it is worth radically regulating global industry. Why? Al Gore lives in a 10,000 square foot mansion that uses more energy in a month than the average American home uses in a year. I have no problem with this. It does make me believe that the catastrophic case he makes in his movies may be overblown. It makes it easy for skeptics or "deniers" to dismiss activism around this issue as moral posturing rather than an urgent, evidence-based call to action. Why? I believe Elon Musk, or someone of his ilk, is more likely to solve the problem with a tech breakthrough, than a treaty drawn up in Brussels. Why? If GW is the existential threat many make it out to be, why is nuclear energy given so little consideration? I understand the risk of meltdown and the solid waste management issues, but those seem like manageable risks in comparison with the scary unknowability that global warming brings. Why? Data seems to show the negative effects of global warming are arriving more slowly than expected. It seems like we'll have the ability to slowly adjust to changes that come, rather than imposing radical sanctions on us today. This may turn out to be a mistaken assumption, but it is what it is.

brianpgordon 9y ago
> Al Gore lives in a 10,000 square foot mansion that uses more energy in a month than the average American home uses in a year. I don't know if this is true, but if it is it has no bearing on the truth or urgency of the climate change problem. > I believe Elon Musk, or someone of his ilk, is more likely to solve the problem with a tech breakthrough, than a treaty drawn up in Brussels. This seems unlikely to me. Everyone has an incentive to pollute because they don't have to pay for the externality of destroying the environment. Without regulation factories and plants would be dumping effluent into rivers and belching oceans of smoke into the sky. Governments and international cooperation are the only practical way to pressure everyone to play fair and pay for the negative externalities. > If GW is the existential threat many make it out to be, why is nuclear energy given so little consideration? If GW is the existential threat many make it out to be, why are solutions to GW in general given so little consideration? It's a polarizing issue fraught with political perils. By the way, there is a huge amount of support behind thorium reactor research but it hasn't gained enough traction to compete due to the political environment and people's fears of nuclear. And it's extraordinarily capital-intensive to build a nuclear plant; very few profitable opportunities for one exist in the first place. > Data seems to show the negative effects of global warming are arriving more slowly than expected. It seems like we'll have the ability to slowly adjust to changes that come, rather than imposing radical sanctions on us today. An unfortunate aspect of this problem is that we have to make investments now when the catastrophic effects aren't being felt yet in order to head off disaster in the future. Even if follow the Paris accords we're still a long way off from being projected to weather worldwide environmental disaster. Projections will be adjusted as we gather more data, and those projections may have moved forward in the past, but what the best available data shows now is that we need to start making radical changes now.
- replicatorblog 9y ago
  + Re: Gore's house, here is a Snopes article: https://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp https://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp I understand that it's an unpersuasive to you, but don't underestimate how high-profile hypocrisy like helps skeptics reinforce their priors. If you want to change minds, you need to understand how they work. + Re: International Cooperation. Getting 195 companies to agree on meaningful change seems less likely than the consistent progress of tech. + Re: Nukes, they're expensive to build in part because of regulations and non-stop scare campaigns. + Re: Making radical changes, now. While there is plenty of data to support the general warming thesis, the data on the pace and severity of change is not so impressive. Keep up the good fight, but don't be surprised when your proposals receive opposition.
Improvotter 9y ago
> But I'm not convinced addressing it is worth radically regulating global industry. This shouldn't only be looked at as an issue that doesn't affect you. Diesel and the like aren't exactly the most healthy energy sources. Why not focus on it right now because it won't go away if we're not gonna pay attention to it. > more likely to solve the problem with a tech breakthrough, than a treaty drawn up in Brussels. These "treaties" as you like to call them help the tech advance so we can get a breakthrough earlier. Why would the whole world would want to advance something when there is no financial drive for it? The government speeds up the process. > If GW is the existential threat many make it out to be, why is nuclear energy given so little consideration? I understand the risk of meltdown and the solid waste management issues, but those seem like manageable risks in comparison with the scary unknowability that global warming brings. Nuclear energy is given a considerable amount of consideration. The major breakthrough that is bound to happen the coming 10 years hopefully is how to manage nuclear fusion. How we can use the energy that is released when 2 atomic nuclei "merge"? (to put it bluntly) > Data seems to show the negative effects of global warming are arriving more slowly than expected. It seems like we'll have the ability to slowly adjust to changes that come, rather than imposing radical sanctions on us today. This may turn out to be a mistaken assumption, but it is what it is. Completely false, global warming is happening faster than was anticipated and it keeps climbing to a level at which we can no longer control it. We cannot simply stop this from happening and there is no switch to turn it around, we need to stop it from rising before we no longer can.

brianpgordon 9y ago

> Al Gore lives in a 10,000 square foot mansion that uses more energy in a month than the average American home uses in a year. I don't know if this is true, but if it is it has no bearing on the truth or urgency of the climate change problem. > I believe Elon Musk, or someone of his ilk, is more likely to solve the problem with a tech breakthrough, than a treaty drawn up in Brussels. This seems unlikely to me. Everyone has an incentive to pollute because they don't have to pay for the externality of destroying the environment. Without regulation factories and plants would be dumping effluent into rivers and belching oceans of smoke into the sky. Governments and international cooperation are the only practical way to pressure everyone to play fair and pay for the negative externalities. > If GW is the existential threat many make it out to be, why is nuclear energy given so little consideration? If GW is the existential threat many make it out to be, why are solutions to GW in general given so little consideration? It's a polarizing issue fraught with political perils. By the way, there is a huge amount of support behind thorium reactor research but it hasn't gained enough traction to compete due to the political environment and people's fears of nuclear. And it's extraordinarily capital-intensive to build a nuclear plant; very few profitable opportunities for one exist in the first place. > Data seems to show the negative effects of global warming are arriving more slowly than expected. It seems like we'll have the ability to slowly adjust to changes that come, rather than imposing radical sanctions on us today. An unfortunate aspect of this problem is that we have to make investments now when the catastrophic effects aren't being felt yet in order to head off disaster in the future. Even if follow the Paris accords we're still a long way off from being projected to weather worldwide environmental disaster. Projections will be adjusted as we gather more data, and those projections may have moved forward in the past, but what the best available data shows now is that we need to start making radical changes now.

replicatorblog 9y ago
+ Re: Gore's house, here is a Snopes article: https://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp https://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp I understand that it's an unpersuasive to you, but don't underestimate how high-profile hypocrisy like helps skeptics reinforce their priors. If you want to change minds, you need to understand how they work. + Re: International Cooperation. Getting 195 companies to agree on meaningful change seems less likely than the consistent progress of tech. + Re: Nukes, they're expensive to build in part because of regulations and non-stop scare campaigns. + Re: Making radical changes, now. While there is plenty of data to support the general warming thesis, the data on the pace and severity of change is not so impressive. Keep up the good fight, but don't be surprised when your proposals receive opposition.

Improvotter 9y ago

> But I'm not convinced addressing it is worth radically regulating global industry. This shouldn't only be looked at as an issue that doesn't affect you. Diesel and the like aren't exactly the most healthy energy sources. Why not focus on it right now because it won't go away if we're not gonna pay attention to it. > more likely to solve the problem with a tech breakthrough, than a treaty drawn up in Brussels. These "treaties" as you like to call them help the tech advance so we can get a breakthrough earlier. Why would the whole world would want to advance something when there is no financial drive for it? The government speeds up the process. > If GW is the existential threat many make it out to be, why is nuclear energy given so little consideration? I understand the risk of meltdown and the solid waste management issues, but those seem like manageable risks in comparison with the scary unknowability that global warming brings. Nuclear energy is given a considerable amount of consideration. The major breakthrough that is bound to happen the coming 10 years hopefully is how to manage nuclear fusion. How we can use the energy that is released when 2 atomic nuclei "merge"? (to put it bluntly) > Data seems to show the negative effects of global warming are arriving more slowly than expected. It seems like we'll have the ability to slowly adjust to changes that come, rather than imposing radical sanctions on us today. This may turn out to be a mistaken assumption, but it is what it is. Completely false, global warming is happening faster than was anticipated and it keeps climbing to a level at which we can no longer control it. We cannot simply stop this from happening and there is no switch to turn it around, we need to stop it from rising before we no longer can.