4 ms·

> most people on HN can agree on is climate change. There are many aspects of the climate change issue where disagreement is reasonable. Does industrial progre

> most people on HN can agree on is climate change. There are many aspects of the climate change issue where disagreement is reasonable. Does industrial progress need to be sacrificed to prevent climate change? How much governmental intervention is helpful? How accurate are predictions of what is coming? What is the most efficient way to prevent climate change and how effective will those actions be? There is no correct path forward. To say you think we can all agree on climate change implies that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

slg 7y ago
You are right, I could have phrased that better. We certainly won't all agree on the specific path forward. What I meant was that most people on here can probably agree that our current path is not adequately addressing the problem, that changes need to be made going forward, and those changes require political action.
- avmich 7y ago
  Importantly we need to understand that we can't require first to have that agreement and only after that start addressing the problem itself. Just like with space exploration, where we can't postpone it till there will be no hunger on Earth, we can't postpone acting on climate crisis until we agree on how to act. We have to act without full agreement.
  - mythrwy 7y ago
    And at best we will get expansive half measures. The best thing that could happen to climate science would be to decouple from political ideology.
    - avmich 7y ago
      That's a really tall order. To have science - in general, since if that happens with climate it probably happens with other areas - to be decoupled from politics is to significantly change our current practices of governance. Hopefully for better - but it's a hard task to do.
- pathseeker 7y ago
  So what are you supposed to do in the US if you agree that climate change is a problem? The democratic party is not interested in solving it in the time-frame required (i.e. anti-nuclear) and the republican party might be okay with nuclear but isn't really that interested in solving the issue. Which party do you try to participate in to affect change? Both have effectively given up on evidence-based policies.
  - caf 7y ago
    Of the 10 Democratic presidential primary candidates who were on the stage this week, only two (Sanders and Warren) are explicitly against nuclear power. Harris' position is unclear, and the rest are in favour. https://www.npr.org/2019/09/11/758173003/climate-issues-where-2020-democrats-stand-on-the-green-new-deal-and-more https://www.npr.org/2019/09/11/758173003/climate-issues-wher...
  - nanomonkey 7y ago
    Green party! Or act locally within your county and city, as any successful local model can be later taken up by other municipalities.
    - eli_gottlieb 7y ago
      The Green Party loathes nuclear energy.
mythrwy 7y ago
I also don't think it's unreasonable to question if the net magnitude and effects of human induced climate change have been (or even can be at this point) modeled well enough to make accurate predictions. It's certainly not a consensus as far as I'm concerned although I think most reasonable people agree it's likely we are altering the climate.
deanCommie 7y ago
> Does industrial progress need to be sacrificed to prevent climate change? How can you even ask such a question with a straight face? What benefit is there from a couple of additional points of GDP if we destroy our habitat? The problem with all of the questions you raise is I have never seen anybody asking them in good faith. They are used purely to derail discussion or any active problems or solutions. A generous explanation would be that since the two sides can't agree that there is a problem to begin with, there can be no logical debate about the right way to SOLVE it. As such, anyone who is asking these questions never offers ALTERNATIVES - all they offer is DOING NOTHING. Which, given the stakes involved, is not passive, but an active impediment to moving forward. > How much governmental intervention is helpful? Private industry never moves in a direction that compromises profits without government intervention. That is inherent in free market capitalism, and has been demonstrated again and again worldwide. > How accurate are predictions of what is coming? Oh no, what if we improve our planet and habitat and keep our ecosystem and food production environments stable for nothing? > What is the most efficient way to prevent climate change and how effective will those actions be? One side offers some ideas. The other offers doing nothing. There is no disagreement here either, just good faith and bad. > There is no correct path forward. I'll finally agree with you there. I sincerely hope there will be future civilizations to look back on the historical record of the time and shake their heads in amazement at our folly, because that is not a guaranteed outcome.
- avmich 7y ago
  I agree with what you say; I think those downvoting don't understand important things. My take on these questions: > How much governmental intervention is helpful? Climate crisis is similar to slowly unfolding war with a powerful, but slow adversary. A world war. So our good experiences and lessons from how to win a war could be helpful, including questions regarding government. How much government intervention is helpful in WWII? > How accurate are predictions of what is coming? Nice question, but sort of beside the point. Can be answered, but it leads away from the problem. Suppose our predictions are not too accurate. Given the stakes, we still have to do a lot of efforts, since in case we overestimated the problem the downside isn't big - comparing to potential downside of doing nothing. The truth is that we don't really know the certainty of predictions. Last time I've heard the climatologists were trying to be conservative - they reported about problems they were fairly sure to see, to avoid being called alarmists. Now we see that predictions were rather rosy comparing to actual - more grim - situation. But that's what I've heard. > What is the most efficient way to prevent climate change and how effective will those actions be? Start running right now. Otherwise - imagine similar question asked to JFK, when he announced the Moon race. How long would you think people can debate rather silly and theoretical topic at the time of flying to the Moon? Given that USSR wasn't that keen to fly there in the first place, there were plenty of reasons to be reasonable and save a lot of efforts and money. Didn't USA have better things to do? We can debate about effectiveness, but only if we're already running. Before that we first need to start running, however counterintuitive it could sound.

slg 7y ago

You are right, I could have phrased that better. We certainly won't all agree on the specific path forward. What I meant was that most people on here can probably agree that our current path is not adequately addressing the problem, that changes need to be made going forward, and those changes require political action.

avmich 7y ago
Importantly we need to understand that we can't require first to have that agreement and only after that start addressing the problem itself. Just like with space exploration, where we can't postpone it till there will be no hunger on Earth, we can't postpone acting on climate crisis until we agree on how to act. We have to act without full agreement.
- mythrwy 7y ago
  And at best we will get expansive half measures. The best thing that could happen to climate science would be to decouple from political ideology.
  - avmich 7y ago
    That's a really tall order. To have science - in general, since if that happens with climate it probably happens with other areas - to be decoupled from politics is to significantly change our current practices of governance. Hopefully for better - but it's a hard task to do.
pathseeker 7y ago
So what are you supposed to do in the US if you agree that climate change is a problem? The democratic party is not interested in solving it in the time-frame required (i.e. anti-nuclear) and the republican party might be okay with nuclear but isn't really that interested in solving the issue. Which party do you try to participate in to affect change? Both have effectively given up on evidence-based policies.
- caf 7y ago
  Of the 10 Democratic presidential primary candidates who were on the stage this week, only two (Sanders and Warren) are explicitly against nuclear power. Harris' position is unclear, and the rest are in favour. https://www.npr.org/2019/09/11/758173003/climate-issues-where-2020-democrats-stand-on-the-green-new-deal-and-more https://www.npr.org/2019/09/11/758173003/climate-issues-wher...
- nanomonkey 7y ago
  Green party! Or act locally within your county and city, as any successful local model can be later taken up by other municipalities.
  - eli_gottlieb 7y ago
    The Green Party loathes nuclear energy.

mythrwy 7y ago

I also don't think it's unreasonable to question if the net magnitude and effects of human induced climate change have been (or even can be at this point) modeled well enough to make accurate predictions. It's certainly not a consensus as far as I'm concerned although I think most reasonable people agree it's likely we are altering the climate.

deanCommie 7y ago

> Does industrial progress need to be sacrificed to prevent climate change? How can you even ask such a question with a straight face? What benefit is there from a couple of additional points of GDP if we destroy our habitat? The problem with all of the questions you raise is I have never seen anybody asking them in good faith. They are used purely to derail discussion or any active problems or solutions. A generous explanation would be that since the two sides can't agree that there is a problem to begin with, there can be no logical debate about the right way to SOLVE it. As such, anyone who is asking these questions never offers ALTERNATIVES - all they offer is DOING NOTHING. Which, given the stakes involved, is not passive, but an active impediment to moving forward. > How much governmental intervention is helpful? Private industry never moves in a direction that compromises profits without government intervention. That is inherent in free market capitalism, and has been demonstrated again and again worldwide. > How accurate are predictions of what is coming? Oh no, what if we improve our planet and habitat and keep our ecosystem and food production environments stable for nothing? > What is the most efficient way to prevent climate change and how effective will those actions be? One side offers some ideas. The other offers doing nothing. There is no disagreement here either, just good faith and bad. > There is no correct path forward. I'll finally agree with you there. I sincerely hope there will be future civilizations to look back on the historical record of the time and shake their heads in amazement at our folly, because that is not a guaranteed outcome.

avmich 7y ago
I agree with what you say; I think those downvoting don't understand important things. My take on these questions: > How much governmental intervention is helpful? Climate crisis is similar to slowly unfolding war with a powerful, but slow adversary. A world war. So our good experiences and lessons from how to win a war could be helpful, including questions regarding government. How much government intervention is helpful in WWII? > How accurate are predictions of what is coming? Nice question, but sort of beside the point. Can be answered, but it leads away from the problem. Suppose our predictions are not too accurate. Given the stakes, we still have to do a lot of efforts, since in case we overestimated the problem the downside isn't big - comparing to potential downside of doing nothing. The truth is that we don't really know the certainty of predictions. Last time I've heard the climatologists were trying to be conservative - they reported about problems they were fairly sure to see, to avoid being called alarmists. Now we see that predictions were rather rosy comparing to actual - more grim - situation. But that's what I've heard. > What is the most efficient way to prevent climate change and how effective will those actions be? Start running right now. Otherwise - imagine similar question asked to JFK, when he announced the Moon race. How long would you think people can debate rather silly and theoretical topic at the time of flying to the Moon? Given that USSR wasn't that keen to fly there in the first place, there were plenty of reasons to be reasonable and save a lot of efforts and money. Didn't USA have better things to do? We can debate about effectiveness, but only if we're already running. Before that we first need to start running, however counterintuitive it could sound.