4 ms·

I agree with your points, but I admit I also suffer confusion regarding climate change. I agree it's real, I'm willing to do some things about it, but I'm not w

I agree with your points, but I admit I also suffer confusion regarding climate change. I agree it's real, I'm willing to do some things about it, but I'm not willing to go crazy. I look at https://co2.myclimate.org/en/portfolios?calculation_id=2933013&localized_currency=USD https://co2.myclimate.org/en/portfolios?calculation_id=29330... and I see that 8.4 t CO2 is about average for EU citizens and rough estimate would cost easily less than $300 USD per citizen, sorry for mixing regional numbers. If this is accurate, then it seems the cost of doing eliminating CO2 globally equals around 6billion people * $300. $1.8 trillion dollars, that feels like an absurdly low number.

hootbootscoot 7y ago
Go crazy. You should be willing to spend approx 100% of your capital in any form for a thing called "survival of human civilization". Your money means nothing without other humans to spend it with.
- hootbootscoot 7y ago
  Let me know when you arrive at hard numbers for carbon sequestration tech. OTOH, one could consider revamping entirely wasteful entirely stupidly designed industrial processes in favor of ones that don't put our entire civilization at risk. There will be no markets if civilization collapses.
  - tunap 7y ago
    I believe the point of the "media problem" lies in your response, as well. While I agree, I would use the less judgemental adjectives "inefficient" & "archaic". Edit: removed my own judgement.
- friedman23 7y ago
  >You should be willing to spend approx 100% of your capital in any form for a thing called "survival of human civilization" This is ridiculous.
- jmull 7y ago
  I understand your point, but we need a healthy, functioning global economy to have the resources to tackle global-scale problems. Going crazy, whatever that means, is going to fail because it won't be possible to sustain efforts as the economy shrinks. What we actually want to do is to pay a relatively tiny cost now to avoid a much larger cost later.
pjc50 7y ago
That's a couple of Iraq wars. Which sounds .. about right for the total mobilization of half a million troops for a decade or two plus several times that number of support and manufacture personnel at home? Imagine mobilizing that level of support against climate change.
- turk73 7y ago
  What are half a million troops going to do for 10-20 years? A massive death squad? My opinion on the matter of environment is that only population reduction is going to solve anything. Fewer people, period. The rest is just a power grab. The collectivists invented this tripe as Communist Revolution 2.0 "Now with even more cowbell."
- SapporoChris 7y ago
  That's actually a very cool way of imagining it. I'll save that concept for future use. Thank you.

hootbootscoot 7y ago

Go crazy. You should be willing to spend approx 100% of your capital in any form for a thing called "survival of human civilization". Your money means nothing without other humans to spend it with.

hootbootscoot 7y ago
Let me know when you arrive at hard numbers for carbon sequestration tech. OTOH, one could consider revamping entirely wasteful entirely stupidly designed industrial processes in favor of ones that don't put our entire civilization at risk. There will be no markets if civilization collapses.
- tunap 7y ago
  I believe the point of the "media problem" lies in your response, as well. While I agree, I would use the less judgemental adjectives "inefficient" & "archaic". Edit: removed my own judgement.
friedman23 7y ago
>You should be willing to spend approx 100% of your capital in any form for a thing called "survival of human civilization" This is ridiculous.
jmull 7y ago
I understand your point, but we need a healthy, functioning global economy to have the resources to tackle global-scale problems. Going crazy, whatever that means, is going to fail because it won't be possible to sustain efforts as the economy shrinks. What we actually want to do is to pay a relatively tiny cost now to avoid a much larger cost later.

pjc50 7y ago

That's a couple of Iraq wars. Which sounds .. about right for the total mobilization of half a million troops for a decade or two plus several times that number of support and manufacture personnel at home? Imagine mobilizing that level of support against climate change.

turk73 7y ago
What are half a million troops going to do for 10-20 years? A massive death squad? My opinion on the matter of environment is that only population reduction is going to solve anything. Fewer people, period. The rest is just a power grab. The collectivists invented this tripe as Communist Revolution 2.0 "Now with even more cowbell."
SapporoChris 7y ago
That's actually a very cool way of imagining it. I'll save that concept for future use. Thank you.