4 ms·

Even if you think there is a 20% chance climate change exists, wouldn't it be a good strategy to try & fix it? It's a 20% chance of massive, horrible problems.

Even if you think there is a 20% chance climate change exists, wouldn't it be a good strategy to try & fix it? It's a 20% chance of massive, horrible problems. Especially given that you are a technologist & the solution here is better technology.

tomohawk 9y ago
I've heard this argument (something bad might be happening! we don't know the solution, but we must try Something!) about so many things over so many years, and it has not ever once resulted in a positive change. It's an argument from fear instead of knowledge.
- lostapathy 9y ago
  I always look at it from a pollution angle. Even if global warming is a farce (I don’t think it is), cleaner air is a win. Cleaner water is a win. Etc. If you don’t want a greener world for climate reasons, why not a cleaner world for your lungs?
  - tomohawk 9y ago
    Remembering the days of very polluting cars and leaded gas, etc, its great to not have to deal with that. Definitely a win. But, you have to consider the cost and possible implications of any change, or you're actually more likely to make the situation worse, or end up wasting a lot of time/money/lives.
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    Then you should be happy because the water and the air have never been cleaner. The places where pollution is the worst is poor places, not rich places which indicate that making societies more prosperous is better, not worse for the environment. This includes access to cheap energy which currently also means coal and fossil fuels. The problem is that when you present this to those who are worried about the climate they don't actually rejoice and say, phew great. Instead, they get upset which I find weird.
sintaxi 9y ago
This argument is known as Pascals Wager. The problem is this issue is preventing Millions of people from being brought out of poverty. Instead we are funding organizations that are attempting to industrialize western civilization. In my opinion we should industrialize suffering regions which will lead to lower global birth-rates. Meanwhile continue to develop Solar, Nuclear, and Hydro where possible. De-industrialization is so unrealistic to me and would be foolish given how awful the climate predictions have turned out to be.
- Retric 9y ago
  Sorry, but it's rich western countries that have issues with going green. Poor and growing countries can save money by building wind and solar plants rich countries already have massive infrastructure dependent on fossil fuels. Just look how quickly China.
  - tomohawk 9y ago
    China is hardly a model of green energy. Germany and Denmark are not saving money with their switch to wind. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-e... I really love the advice to save money on energy by turning down the screen brightness.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Poor countries are generally closer to the equator than Germany significantly increases solar efficiency, they also benifit from lower land and labor costs. So, as I said there are significant economic differences. As to China they added 19.3 GW of wind power generation capacity in 2016 and have about twice as much installed as the USA. China has installed more solar power than any other country every year since 2013 recently passing 100 GW total which is again about twice the US capacity. PS: China uses significantly more electricity than the US so on a percentage bases they are not that green. But the investment has been massive and increasing rapidly.

tomohawk 9y ago

I've heard this argument (something bad might be happening! we don't know the solution, but we must try Something!) about so many things over so many years, and it has not ever once resulted in a positive change. It's an argument from fear instead of knowledge.

lostapathy 9y ago
I always look at it from a pollution angle. Even if global warming is a farce (I don’t think it is), cleaner air is a win. Cleaner water is a win. Etc. If you don’t want a greener world for climate reasons, why not a cleaner world for your lungs?
- tomohawk 9y ago
  Remembering the days of very polluting cars and leaded gas, etc, its great to not have to deal with that. Definitely a win. But, you have to consider the cost and possible implications of any change, or you're actually more likely to make the situation worse, or end up wasting a lot of time/money/lives.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  Then you should be happy because the water and the air have never been cleaner. The places where pollution is the worst is poor places, not rich places which indicate that making societies more prosperous is better, not worse for the environment. This includes access to cheap energy which currently also means coal and fossil fuels. The problem is that when you present this to those who are worried about the climate they don't actually rejoice and say, phew great. Instead, they get upset which I find weird.

sintaxi 9y ago

This argument is known as Pascals Wager. The problem is this issue is preventing Millions of people from being brought out of poverty. Instead we are funding organizations that are attempting to industrialize western civilization. In my opinion we should industrialize suffering regions which will lead to lower global birth-rates. Meanwhile continue to develop Solar, Nuclear, and Hydro where possible. De-industrialization is so unrealistic to me and would be foolish given how awful the climate predictions have turned out to be.

Retric 9y ago
Sorry, but it's rich western countries that have issues with going green. Poor and growing countries can save money by building wind and solar plants rich countries already have massive infrastructure dependent on fossil fuels. Just look how quickly China.
- tomohawk 9y ago
  China is hardly a model of green energy. Germany and Denmark are not saving money with their switch to wind. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-e... I really love the advice to save money on energy by turning down the screen brightness.
  - Retric 9y ago
    Poor countries are generally closer to the equator than Germany significantly increases solar efficiency, they also benifit from lower land and labor costs. So, as I said there are significant economic differences. As to China they added 19.3 GW of wind power generation capacity in 2016 and have about twice as much installed as the USA. China has installed more solar power than any other country every year since 2013 recently passing 100 GW total which is again about twice the US capacity. PS: China uses significantly more electricity than the US so on a percentage bases they are not that green. But the investment has been massive and increasing rapidly.