3 ms·

> yet those people elected seem hell bent on wrecking it to support a shrinking fossil fuel industry. This is a silly recurring narrative that has no basis in

> yet those people elected seem hell bent on wrecking it to support a shrinking fossil fuel industry. This is a silly recurring narrative that has no basis in reality. Politicians aren't clinging to some particular industry, they're interested in not destroying the whole economy that is necessary for our wealth and prosperity, certainly not for the FUD that is currently being spread in an area where nobody even takes a closer look at outrageous claims anymore for fear of being shouted down and where quoting IPCC reports is considered "being in denial".

strombofulous 7y ago
They're not actually trying to support the fossil fuel industry. They don't really care about it at all. It just happens to be the case that a lot of people who vote for them are involved in the fossil fuel industry and will be directly affected by its downfall.
- bamboozled 7y ago
  No, I think they’re trying to support the industry. What other plausible motive would there be for the inaction? I mean, if what you said was true and they only cared about people’s futures, they would’ve carved out a transition plan for those jobs to renewables thirty years ago. Nothing has been done really since.
  - Udik 7y ago
    > No, I think they’re trying to support the industry. What other plausible motive would there be for the inaction? This is the "if you don't agree with me, you must be paid by someone" conspiratorial thinking. In particular, I find it simply incredible that you can ask a question such as "what other plausible motives would there be for inaction". Here is one: every part of the economy is deeply dependent on fossil fuels consumption. Economy, like climate, rests on a very delicate balance where changes can have enormous costs in terms of jobs, lack of growth, and ultimately poverty and death.
ncmncm 7y ago
Every analysis shows that actually dealing with the problem front and center invigorates the economy. Politicians resisting action are not motivated by concern for the economy or public well-being. The only alternative consistent with the facts is they are beholden to fossil industry.
- makomk 7y ago
  No, every analysis shows that dealing with the problem front and center will require huge amounts of resources and labour. That's not the same thing as benefiting the economy. There's a well-known problem in economics known as the broken window fallacy. Suppose someone wakes up and notices their window has been smashed. They have to get a glazier in to replace it. Even though this helps to employ someone and causes economic activity, it makes no sense to argue that breaking windows helps the economy - that person has had to spend money to get back to where they would be if their window hadn't been broken that could otherwise be put to use actually improving their life. Much like the broken window fallacy, aggressive climate change action involves throwing vast amounts of resources at hopefully getting to the the same point we're already at and providing things we already have, but hopefully with less CO2 emissions. Those resources then cannot be used for other things. Economically speaking, this makes everyone worse off in order to reduce CO2. There's not really any way around that. The press like to spin all the green jobs action against climate change will create as proof it will benefit the economy, but that's just not how things work.
  - TheCapeGreek 7y ago
    The window is already broken. Do we leave it and die from exposure to the elements because it costs money and effort to fix, or do we bite the bullet and fix it with something stronger and sustainable?
    - makomk 7y ago
      You seem to be arguing that fighting climate change is so vital that it's worth the economic cost. That's certainly a valid argument, but it's not the one that was being made - that argument was that rather than having an economic cost, it actually has an economic benefit.

strombofulous 7y ago

They're not actually trying to support the fossil fuel industry. They don't really care about it at all. It just happens to be the case that a lot of people who vote for them are involved in the fossil fuel industry and will be directly affected by its downfall.

bamboozled 7y ago
No, I think they’re trying to support the industry. What other plausible motive would there be for the inaction? I mean, if what you said was true and they only cared about people’s futures, they would’ve carved out a transition plan for those jobs to renewables thirty years ago. Nothing has been done really since.
- Udik 7y ago
  > No, I think they’re trying to support the industry. What other plausible motive would there be for the inaction? This is the "if you don't agree with me, you must be paid by someone" conspiratorial thinking. In particular, I find it simply incredible that you can ask a question such as "what other plausible motives would there be for inaction". Here is one: every part of the economy is deeply dependent on fossil fuels consumption. Economy, like climate, rests on a very delicate balance where changes can have enormous costs in terms of jobs, lack of growth, and ultimately poverty and death.

ncmncm 7y ago

Every analysis shows that actually dealing with the problem front and center invigorates the economy. Politicians resisting action are not motivated by concern for the economy or public well-being. The only alternative consistent with the facts is they are beholden to fossil industry.

makomk 7y ago
No, every analysis shows that dealing with the problem front and center will require huge amounts of resources and labour. That's not the same thing as benefiting the economy. There's a well-known problem in economics known as the broken window fallacy. Suppose someone wakes up and notices their window has been smashed. They have to get a glazier in to replace it. Even though this helps to employ someone and causes economic activity, it makes no sense to argue that breaking windows helps the economy - that person has had to spend money to get back to where they would be if their window hadn't been broken that could otherwise be put to use actually improving their life. Much like the broken window fallacy, aggressive climate change action involves throwing vast amounts of resources at hopefully getting to the the same point we're already at and providing things we already have, but hopefully with less CO2 emissions. Those resources then cannot be used for other things. Economically speaking, this makes everyone worse off in order to reduce CO2. There's not really any way around that. The press like to spin all the green jobs action against climate change will create as proof it will benefit the economy, but that's just not how things work.
- TheCapeGreek 7y ago
  The window is already broken. Do we leave it and die from exposure to the elements because it costs money and effort to fix, or do we bite the bullet and fix it with something stronger and sustainable?
  - makomk 7y ago
    You seem to be arguing that fighting climate change is so vital that it's worth the economic cost. That's certainly a valid argument, but it's not the one that was being made - that argument was that rather than having an economic cost, it actually has an economic benefit.