4 ms·
Man-made vs natural isn't a matter of morality or anything, it's just about whether we can do something to avoid our destruction. If an asteroid hits earth then
by ponker 6y ago
Man-made vs natural isn't a matter of morality or anything, it's just about whether we can do something to avoid our destruction. If an asteroid hits earth then it's not man-made but also inevitable. Climate change isn't a threat to the world -- it's a threat to humans, and if we don't do what's in our power to avert it, we'll wipe a large fraction of us off the planet and precipitate world war. That doesn't mean we still won't have a climate event that wipes out advanced civilization -- but we should do what we can.
If there was a natural climate event that would decrease temperatures by 20 degrees and we could only prevent it by clear-cutting forests and polluting our environment then that's of course what we would do.
- gwright 6y ago> and if we don't do what's in our power to avert it, we'll wipe a large fraction of us off the planet and precipitate world war. This is definitely the approach ("avert") that is assumed in almost all discussion of this topic but there is also the choice to mitigate the effects (infrastructure, relocation, technology). I don't think it is at all clear that we can "avert it" without a tremendous cost and I think it is entirely reasonable to discuss ways of mitigating effects and that approach may be much less costly. The costs associated with averting global warming ultimately focus on reducing greenhouse gases, which means reducing fossil fuel use. But accomplishing that means expensive energy (i.e. carbon tax approaches, expensive power grids based on intermittent renewables) or extraordinary economic slowdowns (think COVID-19 global reduction in economic activity permanently, for example). More importantly instituting those changes to an extent that would actually reduce greenhouse gases would require extraordinary global enforcement mechanisms. How are the more industrialized economies going to force less industrialized economies to use less energy? to build fewer fossil fuel plants, etc? The reductions that are required can't be accomplished by a subset of world's economies. All of this assumes that our knowledge of how the global climate systems work is substantially accurate. What if it isn't?
- ponker 6y agoNon-renewable energy is limited... if we don't gradually make it expensive now it's going to get REALLY expensive very suddenly in a couple of decades. That process is where global wars will be fought over what little energy is remaining. Look how many wars even today are fought over oil.
- organsnyder 6y agoWe keep coming up with ways to overcome this scarcity, however. Fracking has led to tons of cheap fossil fuels, for instance. I'm much more concerned with the disastrous effects if carbon-based fuels remain so cheap; we need to tax the hell out of it now rather than waiting for scarcity that might always be on the horizon.
- garmaine 6y agoIs nuclear non-renewable? Because nuclear is effectively unlimited by today’s standards.
- jacobush 6y agoYou mean if CO2 is not causing a global warming? And you don’t think global warming will eventually cause an economic slowdown at Covid19 or worse levels, permanently? I’m not so optimistic.
- gwright 6y ago> You mean if CO2 is not causing a global warming? I'm not exactly sure what part of my comment you are referring to. If it is the last part regarding our understanding of global climate, then perhaps I can expand my comment a bit. Catastrophic global warming predictions are predicated on two linked concepts: 1) Greenhouse gases block infrared radiation 2) the global climate system has a particular sensitivity to 1) that results in the predicted net change in average global temperature. 1) is basic physics and can be measured directly in the lab. 2) is the "climate sensitivity" to atmospheric CO2 concentrations and its particular value is not directly measurable. It is a component of the complex climate simulation models and is just an estimate of the real climate's sensitivity. My comment was about our confidence in the climate models and the sensitivity that they model. > And you don’t think global warming will eventually cause an economic slowdown at Covid19 or worse levels, permanently? I’m not so optimistic. I don't think there is any particular reason to think that humans won't adapt.
- renewiltord 6y agoMitigation and adaptation are both absolutely part of fighting climate change. Proposed strategies are actually pretty sophisticated. Discussion on boards like this is pointless. No one here knows what they're talking about because they are arriving at these conclusions from first principles and so they are far too slow to reach the better parts¹. But if you go up to the proposed plans for the future talked about by the policy eggheads you know that spending money to move people, to build and renovate sea walls, and build flood control is all absolutely on the cards². If you are curious, then these are usually referred to as climate change adaptation strategies (Google for that exact phrase to get lots of results) in contrast to climate change mitigation strategies (reducing carbon emissions etc.). ¹ The SOTA policy thoughts around this are at Shakespeare and the discussion here is like a child reciting the alphabet. Do yourself a favour and skip this part. ² The geopolitical details about who gets more arable land, etc. are all other factors.
- centimeter 6y ago> we'll wipe a large fraction of us off the planet and precipitate world war Most climate economists estimate that, without substantial behavioral changes, the effect of global warming will reduce our GDP by a single-digit percentage from what it otherwise would have been on the order of 100 years. You’ve been swept up in a very hyperbolic and apocalyptic narrative which lacks any factual basis. It’s not clear that, from a humanitarian standpoint, we should actually change anything about our behavior right now. The humanitarian cost of losing various sources of cheap energy very likely exceeds the humanitarian benefit of slightly reducing expected global temperature.
- philjohn 6y agoThat may be on a global scale - but does it not ignore localised issues in certain parts of the world?
- munk-a 6y ago> The humanitarian cost of losing various sources of cheap energy very likely exceeds the humanitarian benefit of slightly reducing expected global temperature. I'm totally cool giving a pass to areas with severe humanitarian problems that don't have the means to fight them. I care about America and other big consumers getting their act together. And GDP is an interesting measure of stuff, but it is a really poor reflection of standard of living which I value a lot more than GDP measures or the stock market. In fact, losing or gaining a few points of global GDP isn't going to have any meaningful impact on folks living through humanitarian crises.
- caturopath 6y ago> Man-made vs natural isn't a matter of morality or anything, it's just about whether we can do something to avoid our destruction Your last paragraph points out that this isn't the case.
- jacobush 6y agoI fail to see how?