4 ms·
>Even if climate change would be a hoax (which it is not), then why would it be a bad thing to make changes to prevent it from happening anyway? Because those
by ikeboy 7y ago
>Even if climate change would be a hoax (which it is not), then why would it be a bad thing to make changes to prevent it from happening anyway?
Because those come at significant cost, and if there's nothing to worry about then why spend tens of trillions of dollars to stop it?
I mean you might as well use Pascal's wager to argue for religion if you're only looking at potential benefits and ignoring costs.
- rezeroed 7y agoBut renewables are more decentralised. I can't stick a coal plant on my roof. Decentralisation means less corrupt monopoly, less need to regulate.
- ikeboy 7y agoAre you trying to make an argument that regulations on carbon would pay for themselves due to decentralization? I don't think economists would agree with that.
- rezeroed 7y agoNo.
- deadmik3 7y agoYeah sunlight and air are more decentralized but how many companies make solar panels and windmills?
- rezeroed 7y agoCountless?
- thebokehwokeh2 7y ago> if there's nothing to worry about then why spend tens of trillions of dollars to stop it? Extremely shortsighted thinking. If we're talking about cost, this should be the argument: tens of trillions < the future of humanity.
- ikeboy 7y agoRemember, the hypothetical being discussed is that climate change is a hoax. In that scenario, inaction doesn't lead to any harmful consequences.
- deadmik3 7y agoit's also the imbalance of cost, where western countries get shamed and blamed if they don't agree to costly restrictions while places like China and India cause most of the world's pollution and don't care
- ivalm 7y agoPer capita US produces more CO2 than China right now.