4 ms·

So who wants to volunteer to have their living conditions drastically reduced? The west likes to blame China and India, places we've outsourced manufacturing a

So who wants to volunteer to have their living conditions drastically reduced? The west likes to blame China and India, places we've outsourced manufacturing and work to and yet somehow they still produce far less CO2 per capita. We shame people into reducing their individual emissions while ignoring the fact that industry produces most of the emissions. The fact is, no country is going to take drastic measures. We don't know exactly what's going to happen when the world warms 3 degrees (we have ideas, but the world has been both warmer and colder in the past, and somehow life survived). We do however know what would happen if we suddenly stunted economic progress tomorrow (nothing good).

throwaway5752 7y ago
I will. I think you are missing quite a bit of research on what a 3 deg C/6 deg F warmer world looks like. It will stunt economic growth a lot more than voluntary measures. edit: "The west likes to blame China and India, places we've outsourced manufacturing and work to and yet somehow they still produce far less CO2 per capita. We shame people into reducing their individual emissions while ignoring the fact that industry produces most of the emissions." do you see how you are contradicting yourself here saying that placed we've outsource industry to have lower per capita CO2 emissions. Can you clarify that?
about_help 7y ago
This argument is tired. We can maintain 1st world living conditions while drastically reducing emissions. Throw away consumerism is literally a toxic force on the planet, but the wealthy do not want to disrupt their income streams and "gamble" their fortunes on reinvestment or environmental rehabilitation. Your argument is akin to "why don't you donate all your money" when someone says the rich should be taxed more heavily.
r00fus 7y ago
Sounds like you're always the first one to reply to anything climate related with some false dichotomy. We can make changes without adjusting living conditions drastically - moving to EVs, removing fossil fuel subsidies, pushing solar over coal/gas. In fact, we might improve our living conditions by reducing our addition to oil, as long as it's managed and not cold-turkey.
- Mikeb85 7y ago
  > Sounds like you're always the first one to reply to anything climate related with some false dichotomy. Nah, somehow I just got unlucky enough to log on when alarmist articles are somehow in the feed. I'm simply not huge on alarmism. > moving to EVs Which run on electricity generated by coal. > In fact, we might improve our living conditions by reducing our addition to oil, as long as it's managed and not cold-turkey. And we will. Just not huge on articles where every comment essentially says the world is going to end 10 years from now. It won't.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    I think the assertion isn't that the world is going to end 10 years from now. It's more that unless we pull off a miracle in the next 10 years, it's essentially going to end this century.
    - Mikeb85 7y ago
      Still not going to happen.
      - esarbe 7y ago
        Yes it is. And I can continue that all day long. When you are standing on the rails with a high-speed train rushing towards you and your buddy next to you is yelling "LET'S GET OF THE RAILS OR WE'RE GOING TO DIE!", that's not alarmist. But you try to make it look like that. Seriously. Looking at your history of comments, climate change denials seems to be one of your things, so trying to reach you is probably a lost cause. Yes, the world is burning. Yes, the ecosystem is failing. Yes, hordes of hungry refugees will roam the planet (probably even Alberta!). Yes, civilization is going to collapse. (If we don't get our shit together REALLY quickly, which I doubt we will). Sticking your fingers in your ears, sticking your head into the sand, singing "LALALA" very loudly and calling people 'alarmist' is not going to change that. But hey! Après moi, le déluge! At least we will have had the most awesome orgy of consumption and self-deception, like, ever. Awesome!
fallingfrog 7y ago
James Hansen coauthored a paper in 2013 calculating that the warming you get from burning every bit of fossil fuels is not 3 degrees, but more like 12. At those temperatures any human that doesn’t move to the polar regions will die of heatstroke, not to mention any economic effects.

throwaway5752 7y ago

I will. I think you are missing quite a bit of research on what a 3 deg C/6 deg F warmer world looks like. It will stunt economic growth a lot more than voluntary measures. edit: "The west likes to blame China and India, places we've outsourced manufacturing and work to and yet somehow they still produce far less CO2 per capita. We shame people into reducing their individual emissions while ignoring the fact that industry produces most of the emissions." do you see how you are contradicting yourself here saying that placed we've outsource industry to have lower per capita CO2 emissions. Can you clarify that?

about_help 7y ago

This argument is tired. We can maintain 1st world living conditions while drastically reducing emissions. Throw away consumerism is literally a toxic force on the planet, but the wealthy do not want to disrupt their income streams and "gamble" their fortunes on reinvestment or environmental rehabilitation. Your argument is akin to "why don't you donate all your money" when someone says the rich should be taxed more heavily.

r00fus 7y ago

Sounds like you're always the first one to reply to anything climate related with some false dichotomy. We can make changes without adjusting living conditions drastically - moving to EVs, removing fossil fuel subsidies, pushing solar over coal/gas. In fact, we might improve our living conditions by reducing our addition to oil, as long as it's managed and not cold-turkey.

Mikeb85 7y ago
> Sounds like you're always the first one to reply to anything climate related with some false dichotomy. Nah, somehow I just got unlucky enough to log on when alarmist articles are somehow in the feed. I'm simply not huge on alarmism. > moving to EVs Which run on electricity generated by coal. > In fact, we might improve our living conditions by reducing our addition to oil, as long as it's managed and not cold-turkey. And we will. Just not huge on articles where every comment essentially says the world is going to end 10 years from now. It won't.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  I think the assertion isn't that the world is going to end 10 years from now. It's more that unless we pull off a miracle in the next 10 years, it's essentially going to end this century.
  - Mikeb85 7y ago
    Still not going to happen.
    - esarbe 7y ago
      Yes it is. And I can continue that all day long. When you are standing on the rails with a high-speed train rushing towards you and your buddy next to you is yelling "LET'S GET OF THE RAILS OR WE'RE GOING TO DIE!", that's not alarmist. But you try to make it look like that. Seriously. Looking at your history of comments, climate change denials seems to be one of your things, so trying to reach you is probably a lost cause. Yes, the world is burning. Yes, the ecosystem is failing. Yes, hordes of hungry refugees will roam the planet (probably even Alberta!). Yes, civilization is going to collapse. (If we don't get our shit together REALLY quickly, which I doubt we will). Sticking your fingers in your ears, sticking your head into the sand, singing "LALALA" very loudly and calling people 'alarmist' is not going to change that. But hey! Après moi, le déluge! At least we will have had the most awesome orgy of consumption and self-deception, like, ever. Awesome!

fallingfrog 7y ago

James Hansen coauthored a paper in 2013 calculating that the warming you get from burning every bit of fossil fuels is not 3 degrees, but more like 12. At those temperatures any human that doesn’t move to the polar regions will die of heatstroke, not to mention any economic effects.