3 ms·

The risk of a large amount of humans dying from not being prosperous enough to care for themselves every year the next 100 years is 100% if there is not enough

The risk of a large amount of humans dying from not being prosperous enough to care for themselves every year the next 100 years is 100% if there is not enough growth. You are welcome to isolate this discussion if thats what you need, but to convince me at least you will need show a much broader perspective here and care not just for nature and the people that might be here in the future but also those who are here right now. I am less worried about climate change than of many other things including a major or even fairly large meteor.

Retric 8y ago
Do you think Climate Change is somehow going to help these people? Because it's also going to directly kill a lot of people in absolute terms. The technology is here, using current levels of fossil fuels is not going to aid global GDP. It's really more a question of which groups end up with the proceeds and many very wealthy people would be worse off if oil fields become worthless. That's the push-back on this issue. PS: It's not even a jobs issue, there are only 50,000 coal mining jobs in the US. It's all about infrastructure and owning existing resources.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  I think that denying them access to cheap and reliable fuel such as fossil fuels isn't going to allow them to deal with the climate change thats happening no matter what we do. So I think you have it backward.
  - Retric 8y ago
    It's not a question of limiting coal/oil. The global poor can't afford these resources today and that's not going to change. The third world mostly avoided using landlines because cellphones ended up cheaper. Coal and Oil are also likely to be skipped over for cheaper alternatives. Consider, in the US people save money by installing Solar at home vs using the high quality electric grid. When the grid is on average down for several hours a week the incentives are even stronger.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      The progress of technology is not the same as progress of energy infrastructure. They didn't avoid using landlines they got a better and cheaper alternative. Poorer countries are using fossil fuels today, more so than they are driving around Teslas, let alone having solar on their roofs which is an investment mostly for those of us who can afford it (a small fraction of the western world)
      - Retric 8y ago
        Poorer countries don't have a lot of cars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_... which includes cars, vans, buses, freight and other trucks. Niger/ Gambia / Niger / Myanmar all have ~7 vehicles per 1000 people, and Togo is down at 2 where the US is at 910. So sure some cars, but not a significant investment even China which is a good model of where these countries are going manufactures both electric and IC's. So while they are at 154/1,000 it's a lower percentage of IC's than the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_use_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_use_by_country
        ThomPete 8y ago
        They have even less electrical cars and solar on their rooftops, so you are just proving my point.
        Retric 8y ago
        You have that backwards China has 2.1% electric cars USA is 1.13% electric. China also has vastly more Solar panel adoption than the US because they are building a lot of infrastructure and are using the cheapest options. China even uses solar hot water heaters. https://www.asiabiomass.jp/english/topics/1209_06.html https://www.asiabiomass.jp/english/topics/1209_06.html The poorest countries are a rounding error right now, but don't expect them to use more expensive fossil fuel options.

Retric 8y ago

Do you think Climate Change is somehow going to help these people? Because it's also going to directly kill a lot of people in absolute terms. The technology is here, using current levels of fossil fuels is not going to aid global GDP. It's really more a question of which groups end up with the proceeds and many very wealthy people would be worse off if oil fields become worthless. That's the push-back on this issue. PS: It's not even a jobs issue, there are only 50,000 coal mining jobs in the US. It's all about infrastructure and owning existing resources.

ThomPete 8y ago
I think that denying them access to cheap and reliable fuel such as fossil fuels isn't going to allow them to deal with the climate change thats happening no matter what we do. So I think you have it backward.
- Retric 8y ago
  It's not a question of limiting coal/oil. The global poor can't afford these resources today and that's not going to change. The third world mostly avoided using landlines because cellphones ended up cheaper. Coal and Oil are also likely to be skipped over for cheaper alternatives. Consider, in the US people save money by installing Solar at home vs using the high quality electric grid. When the grid is on average down for several hours a week the incentives are even stronger.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    The progress of technology is not the same as progress of energy infrastructure. They didn't avoid using landlines they got a better and cheaper alternative. Poorer countries are using fossil fuels today, more so than they are driving around Teslas, let alone having solar on their roofs which is an investment mostly for those of us who can afford it (a small fraction of the western world)
    - Retric 8y ago
      Poorer countries don't have a lot of cars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_... which includes cars, vans, buses, freight and other trucks. Niger/ Gambia / Niger / Myanmar all have ~7 vehicles per 1000 people, and Togo is down at 2 where the US is at 910. So sure some cars, but not a significant investment even China which is a good model of where these countries are going manufactures both electric and IC's. So while they are at 154/1,000 it's a lower percentage of IC's than the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_use_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_use_by_country
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        They have even less electrical cars and solar on their rooftops, so you are just proving my point.
        Retric 8y ago
        You have that backwards China has 2.1% electric cars USA is 1.13% electric. China also has vastly more Solar panel adoption than the US because they are building a lot of infrastructure and are using the cheapest options. China even uses solar hot water heaters. https://www.asiabiomass.jp/english/topics/1209_06.html https://www.asiabiomass.jp/english/topics/1209_06.html The poorest countries are a rounding error right now, but don't expect them to use more expensive fossil fuel options.