4 ms·

There are now 3 positions in american discourse on climate change: 1. It's not happening / not real 2. It's happening and we can still prevent it 3. It's hap

There are now 3 positions in american discourse on climate change: 1. It's not happening / not real 2. It's happening and we can still prevent it 3. It's happening and it's worse than we all think Externalities aren't correctly priced into our market and we're suffering the consequences.

rolph 7y ago
I think there is a 4th position not in discourse: 4. Im so old i will die before it kills me, and im rich/influential enough to buy a comfortable situation for myself until that day. or alternatively, "Its Not My Problem."
jobigoud 7y ago
The third option should be more contrasted with the second one. It's: 3. It's happening and we can't prevent it so there is no point doing anything. People that refuse to consider changing their lifestyle will happily leap frog from 1 to 3.
gnusty_gnurc 7y ago
There’s another somewhat marginal position of: change is happening and it’s not “the apocalypse”
perl4ever 7y ago
"Externalities aren't correctly priced" If you can say that, it follows that you have calculated or are aware of the correct price. So, I really want to know - about what is the correct price of the externalities of a gallon of gas that aren't included in, say, the retail price in California? Is it closer to $0.01, $0.10, $1, $10, $100, or $1000?
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  The problem is akin to computing value of human life. If you burning gasoline will kill 3 humans and make life a misery for 20, what's the proper price? Many would argue it's infinity. It's not safe to continue burning fossils in any way, shape or form, not burning fresh biomass either. Reclaiming biogas is probably the only sane way of burning anything now... (Prevents methane releases.) Unfortunately most people don't or can't run moral calculations like this.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    If you don't or won't run calculations, that's fine. Using the word "externalities" though means you will and did and you accept the use of numbers which are not "infinity" and can be compared to other numbers. When you give away that you don't care at all about the meaning of the words you use to try to get leverage, it might as well be the buzzing of gnats. You can't take language wholly as a means to manipulate people and be transparent about it and expect it to continue to work. Anyone who actually believes that the damage done by burning one gallon of gas is "infinity" would be willing to sacrifice humanity to avoid it. But I'm not interested in debating whether that's a correct ethical perspective! You're entitled to feel whatever you feel. My irritation is with people who appropriate economic jargon without the least intent to communicate the ideas a word denotes. To me, destroying the communication value of a word, is like some sort of semantic atrocity. (note, "you" is the generic you, I'm not blaming you for the original poster)
- Tade0 7y ago
  I think it's about $1.40 given the price of sucking CO2 from the atmosphere estimated by Carbon Engineering.

rolph 7y ago

I think there is a 4th position not in discourse: 4. Im so old i will die before it kills me, and im rich/influential enough to buy a comfortable situation for myself until that day. or alternatively, "Its Not My Problem."

jobigoud 7y ago

The third option should be more contrasted with the second one. It's: 3. It's happening and we can't prevent it so there is no point doing anything. People that refuse to consider changing their lifestyle will happily leap frog from 1 to 3.

gnusty_gnurc 7y ago

There’s another somewhat marginal position of: change is happening and it’s not “the apocalypse”

perl4ever 7y ago

"Externalities aren't correctly priced" If you can say that, it follows that you have calculated or are aware of the correct price. So, I really want to know - about what is the correct price of the externalities of a gallon of gas that aren't included in, say, the retail price in California? Is it closer to $0.01, $0.10, $1, $10, $100, or $1000?

AstralStorm 7y ago
The problem is akin to computing value of human life. If you burning gasoline will kill 3 humans and make life a misery for 20, what's the proper price? Many would argue it's infinity. It's not safe to continue burning fossils in any way, shape or form, not burning fresh biomass either. Reclaiming biogas is probably the only sane way of burning anything now... (Prevents methane releases.) Unfortunately most people don't or can't run moral calculations like this.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  If you don't or won't run calculations, that's fine. Using the word "externalities" though means you will and did and you accept the use of numbers which are not "infinity" and can be compared to other numbers. When you give away that you don't care at all about the meaning of the words you use to try to get leverage, it might as well be the buzzing of gnats. You can't take language wholly as a means to manipulate people and be transparent about it and expect it to continue to work. Anyone who actually believes that the damage done by burning one gallon of gas is "infinity" would be willing to sacrifice humanity to avoid it. But I'm not interested in debating whether that's a correct ethical perspective! You're entitled to feel whatever you feel. My irritation is with people who appropriate economic jargon without the least intent to communicate the ideas a word denotes. To me, destroying the communication value of a word, is like some sort of semantic atrocity. (note, "you" is the generic you, I'm not blaming you for the original poster)
Tade0 7y ago
I think it's about $1.40 given the price of sucking CO2 from the atmosphere estimated by Carbon Engineering.