6 ms·
1. Even if we can't completely prevent it, we can stop it from being much worse. 2. Regardless of the climate changer factor, polluting the air causes cancer,
by ghobs91 7y ago
1. Even if we can't completely prevent it, we can stop it from being much worse.
2. Regardless of the climate changer factor, polluting the air causes cancer, damages ecosystems, harms our food supply, etc.
The mentality of "we can't prevent it, so why bother trying" is like accidentally shooting yourself in the foot, and when finding out it'll have to be amputated, proceeding to shoot your other foot because "what's the point?".
- jbattle 7y agoDid you read the article? That's not what it's about at all. The author is saying that we aren't going to "stop" climate change. So instead we should be strategizing how to proactively invest in systems (both natural and man-made) to make them more resilient in the face of changes to come.
- i_am_proteus 7y agoWhich all conveniently line up with one major political platform. "If you frightened by the coming climate cataclysm, then you should also agree with me on everything." It's very well-written, but it's not rational. The content is more political than scientific.
- jbattle 7y agoDeciding on what choices to make in response to the climate changing is inherently political. Science can inform the process but can't tell us which selection of responses is "most valid".
- adrianN 7y agoIt would be really nice though if politicians would trust scientists to tell them which "solutions" don't actually solve the problem at all.
- abathur 7y agoIs climate change more of a scientific problem, or a political one? Will the problem de-materialize as soon as some scientists finally figure it all out?
- tw04 7y agoIt doesn't matter in the least if you agree with a candidate on everything. This one specific subject should be a deal breaker though, regardless of just about any other stance. Your opinion on free market is irrelevant in the face of Extinction.
- i_am_proteus 7y agoTo be clear: I'm referencing to the part of the article where the author irrationally asserts that [list of one party's policies unrelated to the climate] are related to the climate. Hence "more political than scientific."
- leereeves 7y agoAlarmism only discredits the effort to respond to climate change.
- AstralStorm 7y agoWhy? If people are not alarmed, they won't take the necessary extreme measures and extreme and global measures is what we all need. People become desensitized to it, unfortunately. Mostly policy is necessary though, and politicians love half-hearted efforts.
- leereeves 7y agoPeople just don't believe it, largely thanks to past alarmist warnings (like An Inconvenient Truth) that have already proven false.
- jfalconer 7y agoWhat can you really call alarmism at this point, though? We passed 400 PPM in 2016. Even the best-case scenario is incredibly alarming.
- hackeraccount 7y agoCertainly true but decidedly not unusual. To the degree I'm a climate change skeptic it's largely because everyone seems to be using it as a stick to beat some political horse.
- adrianN 7y agoThe best systems to proactively invest in are renewable energies and technologies that reduce our energy demand, like building insulation, heat pumps, and electric cars.
- Glench 7y agoYep, this is advisable by at least one actual scientist, too: https://medium.com/otherlab-news/decarbonization-and-gnd-b8ddd569de16 https://medium.com/otherlab-news/decarbonization-and-gnd-b8d... Also eating less or no meat helps on an individual level.
- ghobs91 7y agoMost versions of the Green New Deal that I've seen heavily incorporate resilience into the plan, it's not solely focused on trying to reverse climate change.
- reallydude 7y agoThe survival of our technological civilization is very much uncertain. It has been since the nuclear age. If someone wanted to take meaningful action, they would be sinking container ships. In aggregate, they contribute to more pollution (of all kinds), than most singular countries. Nobody is going to war over this, so it's inevitable. If it's inevitable, it's not healthy to pretend otherwise. The earth will survive, humans will survive, and maybe technological action will allow us to terraform the earth in a different or unexpected way (eg Snowpiercer). This "debate" about what to do is always toothless and desperate and pointless until the death toll starts to mount. Even then, the wealthy will make the same old arguments about irresponsibility and willful ignorance of those with nothing, blaming the victims, which seems to work generation after generation...until finally we get multinational instability and with smaller populations, some semblance of change too late (eg states of the USSR) to recover from the devastation. What's the mini-state of lower california going to do about 150 degree weather and no water? Nothing.
- ivalm 7y ago> 150 degree weather Now that's a hyperbole. > No water Invest in desalination, like Israel and other rich middle eastern countries.
- reallydude 7y ago> 150 degree weather I guess that depends on what you consider "weather" If I said "ground temperature", would it matter to the discussion? 60C (140F) was the Average temp in the triassic. With the amount of water in the air plus the carbon dioxide, I expect to see that in places a couple generations after I die...which is the time period I've referenced (political instability). The highest ground temperature recorded was 201 degrees at Furnace Creek on July 15, 1972, according to the National Park Service. The maximum air temperature for that day was 128. All types of bad things happen at that point. Water evaporates rapidly at 150, so who cares where the water comes from. It's gone or containers rupture as it turns gaseous. What temperature the air is, doesn't matter.
- 7y ago