3 ms·

So generally with this sort of article I end up making some point about how I believe that the only effective solutions to these sorts of problems are legislati

by fhood 8y ago

So generally with this sort of article I end up making some point about how I believe that the only effective solutions to these sorts of problems are legislative ones. See CFC's and the ozone layer for reference, etc. A reply I often receive, as mentioned in the article, centers around personal freedoms and some sort of economic drag or stagnation that apparently makes the whole thing not worth it, and I have realized that these arguments are an irrelevant distraction from the topic at hand. So here are some bullet points I have come up with. 1. I don't see any argument for how legislative restrictions on carbon could possibly have a more significant economic impact than the displacement and disruption caused by sea level rise. 2. The environment is more important than your ideal of personal freedoms. It just is. This isn't guns, drugs, privacy or free speech. Climate change is a nuclear war scale issue, and should be treated as such. As the article states, it isn't like there is somewhere else to go. 3. If you are opposed legislative solutions to these issues because you don't feel like being inconvenienced, fine. But please just say that, and don't waste time hiding behind irrelevant issues.

ryanmercer 8y ago
>I believe that the only effective solutions to these sorts of problems are legislative ones. See CFC's and the ozone layer There's still at least one factory in China using CFC-11, with zero regard to the environmental impact or international stance on use of CFCs.
- 8bitsrule 8y ago
  Every time we point a finger, there are 3 pointing back at US.
  - linksnapzz 8y ago
    ...BUT WHAT ABOUT (what, exactly?) Please, let's hear about the factories in the US and Europe still using R-12/R-14 with impunity.
8bitsrule 8y ago
In my opinion, if we leave the solution to legislatures, most of humanity will be dead in a century. Unless, of course, the legislatures are taken over by techical people who actually understand how dire the threat is. Renewable energy sources were carefully blocked for decades because legislators liked their jobs more than they liked serving the future. OTOH, your point#2 is spot on. And, without an equally proportional response, very soon, there is little chance of staying below 3%. After which, at some point, the millions of frightened, displaced, and dying people will END the rest.
Carpetsmoker 8y ago
In these kind of conversation the "personal freedom" line is just a discussion stopper when people don't want to be bothered to actually discus the matter at hand. One person's "freedom" to drive their car to work every day means the particulates from the exhaust fumes enter my lungs. I didn't consent to that. Many people die from it every year. How about my freedom to live life without cancer? The same applies to global warming. What about my freedom to not have my house flooded? Personal freedom is important, but we can't have unlimited amounts of it. Sometimes, your personal freedom unreasonably infringes on other people's freedom. Smoke your lungs out for all I care, but I also want the freedom to live without your smell and cancer. Party until 7am, but don't keep the neighbourhood awake. And ... do what you want, but don't fuck up the planet.

by fhood 8y ago

ryanmercer 8y ago

>I believe that the only effective solutions to these sorts of problems are legislative ones. See CFC's and the ozone layer There's still at least one factory in China using CFC-11, with zero regard to the environmental impact or international stance on use of CFCs.

8bitsrule 8y ago
Every time we point a finger, there are 3 pointing back at US.
- linksnapzz 8y ago
  ...BUT WHAT ABOUT (what, exactly?) Please, let's hear about the factories in the US and Europe still using R-12/R-14 with impunity.

8bitsrule 8y ago

In my opinion, if we leave the solution to legislatures, most of humanity will be dead in a century. Unless, of course, the legislatures are taken over by techical people who actually understand how dire the threat is. Renewable energy sources were carefully blocked for decades because legislators liked their jobs more than they liked serving the future. OTOH, your point#2 is spot on. And, without an equally proportional response, very soon, there is little chance of staying below 3%. After which, at some point, the millions of frightened, displaced, and dying people will END the rest.

Carpetsmoker 8y ago

In these kind of conversation the "personal freedom" line is just a discussion stopper when people don't want to be bothered to actually discus the matter at hand. One person's "freedom" to drive their car to work every day means the particulates from the exhaust fumes enter my lungs. I didn't consent to that. Many people die from it every year. How about my freedom to live life without cancer? The same applies to global warming. What about my freedom to not have my house flooded? Personal freedom is important, but we can't have unlimited amounts of it. Sometimes, your personal freedom unreasonably infringes on other people's freedom. Smoke your lungs out for all I care, but I also want the freedom to live without your smell and cancer. Party until 7am, but don't keep the neighbourhood awake. And ... do what you want, but don't fuck up the planet.