5 ms·

If China can ever be persuaded to stop building new coal fired power plants, then there would be reason to be hopeful. If the rest of the world was willing to s

If China can ever be persuaded to stop building new coal fired power plants, then there would be reason to be hopeful. If the rest of the world was willing to sanction them like crazy over it, China would likely cave and focus their efforts on solar. Despite the current state of affairs, Scott Adams is an optimist about the future... https://www.scottadamssays.com/2019/09/23/a-message-for-children-about-climate-change/ https://www.scottadamssays.com/2019/09/23/a-message-for-chil...

fmdud 7y ago
hahahaha the dilbert guy?
pnako 7y ago
China has not been persuaded yet because they have not yet met Greta! It would make sense to send her lecture the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, like she just did with so much success in front of the United Nations. I'm sure Xi Jinping would love to meet her one on one and hear her wisdom.
Mrdarknezz 7y ago
They should focus their efforts on Nuclear. That's the only viable option for green energy production that can power their massive industry and 1.3 billion population.
raxxorrax 7y ago
It is up to developed nations to set an example. If they cannot do it, nobody else will. And Chinas government does indeed take clime protection serious. They tend to understate their measures because of cultural reason, but their results can stand on itself and they don't really need to hide behind anybody. Of course they still have a lot of problems due to their developmental level and we should be careful to not let the government use climate change as a justification to suppress the population, who hasn't developed a widespread consciousness for environmental protections, if we can even claim our societies did. Disallowing China to build coal plants doesn't solve anything.
6d6b73 7y ago
Let's sanction developing countries for doing what the west has done before? How about having the developing countries pay for the damage done to the enviorment and using that money to help developing countries with building cleaner power plants instead?
neumann 7y ago
It requires the world to stop buying the cheaper options offered by countries that provide you with goods because they have lower (or no) regulatory bar for pollution, environment, human rights, equality, welfare. It is a real side effect of globalisation and total economic wealth being such an over-valued metric of prosperity.
aardshark 7y ago
This article is mostly nonsense, but the paragraphs that really stood out to me as particularly stupid were these: Throughout all modern history, when we humans see a problem coming from far away, we have a 100% success rate in solving it. Climate change is no different. All the right people are working hard at a wide variety of solutions and already know how to get there, meaning more nuclear power plus CO2 scrubbers, plus lots of green power from solar, wind, and more. If you are worried about rising sea levels, don’t be. The smartest and richest people in the world are still buying property on the beach. They don’t see the problem. And if sea levels do rise, it will happen slowly enough for people to adjust. I disagree so absolutely with both of these statements that I could not consider that someone would argue them in good faith.
fallingfrog 7y ago
The attitude that Adams has is exactly how I felt in 1996, when I was Thunberg’s age. I felt that technological solutions will emerge, the world is in good hands, responsible adults will take appropriate actions. I was wrong. Fast forward 23 years and nothing has been done, emissions have continued to exponentially increase, every warning has been ignored. It’s now clear that for things to actually turn around the way I thought they would back in 96 would have required massive civil disobedience bordering on revolution, and the aggressive application of military force worldwide to pressure other countries into emissions cuts while pumping huge amounts of resources into supplying the world with carbon free power (at the time, nuclear). Which is pretty much what has to happen now except the timeline is insanely, unfairly shorter.

fmdud 7y ago

hahahaha the dilbert guy?

pnako 7y ago

China has not been persuaded yet because they have not yet met Greta! It would make sense to send her lecture the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, like she just did with so much success in front of the United Nations. I'm sure Xi Jinping would love to meet her one on one and hear her wisdom.

Mrdarknezz 7y ago

They should focus their efforts on Nuclear. That's the only viable option for green energy production that can power their massive industry and 1.3 billion population.

raxxorrax 7y ago

It is up to developed nations to set an example. If they cannot do it, nobody else will. And Chinas government does indeed take clime protection serious. They tend to understate their measures because of cultural reason, but their results can stand on itself and they don't really need to hide behind anybody. Of course they still have a lot of problems due to their developmental level and we should be careful to not let the government use climate change as a justification to suppress the population, who hasn't developed a widespread consciousness for environmental protections, if we can even claim our societies did. Disallowing China to build coal plants doesn't solve anything.

6d6b73 7y ago

Let's sanction developing countries for doing what the west has done before? How about having the developing countries pay for the damage done to the enviorment and using that money to help developing countries with building cleaner power plants instead?

neumann 7y ago

It requires the world to stop buying the cheaper options offered by countries that provide you with goods because they have lower (or no) regulatory bar for pollution, environment, human rights, equality, welfare. It is a real side effect of globalisation and total economic wealth being such an over-valued metric of prosperity.

aardshark 7y ago

This article is mostly nonsense, but the paragraphs that really stood out to me as particularly stupid were these: Throughout all modern history, when we humans see a problem coming from far away, we have a 100% success rate in solving it. Climate change is no different. All the right people are working hard at a wide variety of solutions and already know how to get there, meaning more nuclear power plus CO2 scrubbers, plus lots of green power from solar, wind, and more. If you are worried about rising sea levels, don’t be. The smartest and richest people in the world are still buying property on the beach. They don’t see the problem. And if sea levels do rise, it will happen slowly enough for people to adjust. I disagree so absolutely with both of these statements that I could not consider that someone would argue them in good faith.

fallingfrog 7y ago

The attitude that Adams has is exactly how I felt in 1996, when I was Thunberg’s age. I felt that technological solutions will emerge, the world is in good hands, responsible adults will take appropriate actions. I was wrong. Fast forward 23 years and nothing has been done, emissions have continued to exponentially increase, every warning has been ignored. It’s now clear that for things to actually turn around the way I thought they would back in 96 would have required massive civil disobedience bordering on revolution, and the aggressive application of military force worldwide to pressure other countries into emissions cuts while pumping huge amounts of resources into supplying the world with carbon free power (at the time, nuclear). Which is pretty much what has to happen now except the timeline is insanely, unfairly shorter.