5 ms·

Try to look from another lens. Climate hysterics want to avoid responsibility for the economic damage that their carbon-neutral policies are going to have on s

Try to look from another lens. Climate hysterics want to avoid responsibility for the economic damage that their carbon-neutral policies are going to have on society. They want accountability from others, but not themselves. How many have done the calculations to work out the second and third order effects of their zero fossil fuel agenda? Many of the most ardent callers for climate action are themselves not even climate scientists, but merely offload their thought processing to the intellectuals who are. Almost without fail, neither them, nor the intellectual are educated in economics. The reality is that nobody can work out the second and effects and so on for these drastic changes, because they have incomplete information. The intellectuals and 'thought leaders' themselves have a fraction of a percent of the actual tacit knowledge that drives economic activity. The knowledge is very widely distributed, which is why central planning is less efficient than the market almost all of the time. The tension isn't caused by the "status quo" fighting back. It is caused by hysterics calling for action on things they know nothing about. How many extinction rebellion fanatics have read The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels? It's not like they would if they were recommended it - the mere name will put them off because they have a preconceived notion and will ardently resist any information which is likely to cause cognitive dissonance in themselves. Which tells you everything you need to know. It isn't intellectualism driving them - it is misplaced fear due to grossly exaggerated climate scare claims, drummed up by the status-quo. Almost always, it is the same crowds who babble on about equality and wealth distribution too. Many of them from wealthy or middle-classes, who have resources to help the people they claim to want to help, but rarely, if ever, engage in altruistic acts of voluntary work or charity because they'd rather spend the time talking about it. They won't put their own money or action where their mouths are, but demand it of others - many of whom are not in such fortunate positions.

aggronn 6y ago
Picking this new world order climate hysterics cabal conspiracy theory malarkey apart a little bit.... > Climate hysterics want to avoid responsibility for the economic damage that their carbon-neutral policies are going to have on society. Not a great start. I don't know of any clean energy policy advocates who _arent totally enthusiastic_ about an opportunity to take full responsibility (and credit) for migrating to a clean economy in the next 10 years. Who, at this point, is ignoring the economics of climate change? Nowhere in here are you even claiming that there is a specific, agree'd upon "consequence" of transitioning to renewable energy, you're just raising a vague spectre of economic collapse, which only implies that policy-makers haven't considered that possibility...which is provably false. > Many of the most ardent callers for climate action are themselves not even climate scientists, but merely offload their thought processing to the intellectuals who are. Sounds like a how functioning, science based democratic society should operate, right? > Almost without fail, neither them, nor the intellectual are educated in economics. Absolutely right--scientists aren't politicians aren't economists. Multi-disciplinary public policy requires input from many kinds of 'intellectuals' (also, hn is a weird place to be calling people who trained in, and do, a science professionally 'intellectuals', as if its a bad thing). The alternative is that we live in a fictional autocracy lead by a god-like genius who is singular, all-knowing, and benevolent. > The reality is that nobody can work out the second and effects and so on for these drastic changes, because they have incomplete information. Semi-valid criticism. Implies no one has _any_ idea, but its true no one an predict the future with absolute certainty. > The intellectuals and 'thought leaders' themselves have a fraction of a percent of the actual tacit knowledge that drives economic activity. The knowledge is very widely distributed, which is why central planning is less efficient than the market almost all of the time. Ah... here is the god you're alluding to--anarcho-capitalism? The distributed knowledge of the market economy knows best. There is even an anarcho-capitalist case _for_ renewable energy. If you could just price in the cost of emissions and remove subsidies of oil and gas, we would be decades ahead of where we are today on this issue. > it is misplaced fear due to grossly exaggerated climate scare claims, drummed up by the status-quo. So "climate hysterics" are the powers that be, and oil and gas is punk-rock. I guess on a millenia scale this is true. > They won't put their own money or action where their mouths are, but demand it of others - many of whom are not in such fortunate positions. Waiting to hear about the "climate hysteric" who thinks the solution requires higher taxes (or even, significantly higher cost of living) for people who make under $30k/year. The only reason this would be part of a proposal by a reasonable person is because they know they are negotiating against cynical "ideologues" who personally benefit more from the status quo of an oil and gas dependent economy, who will require this provision for a vote, because they know it sabotages the underlying goals. Why vote no when you can pass intentionally hamstrung legislation? An overarching criticism of parent's point of view: The general theme of their criticism is that "climate hysterical intellectuals" don't know better than the singular, all knowing free market. It barely leaves room for any public policy position at all--which ignores the fact that the current market status quo is driven massively by public policy that has been in effect now for several generations. To say the current place even approximates a "natural, optimal equilibrium" is a gross misunderstanding of 300 years of carbon policy and political and cultural entrenchment.
tonyedgecombe 6y ago
Try to look from another lens. Climate change deniers want to avoid responsibility for the economic damage that their polluting policies are going to have on society. They want accountability from others, but not themselves. How many have done the calculations to work out the second and third order effects of their oil burning agenda? ...
jahaja 6y ago
> economic damage > nor the intellectual are educated in economics > the actual tacit knowledge that drives economic activity > Almost always, it is the same crowds who babble on about equality and wealth distribution too That whole reply pretty much sums up what most right-wing climate scepticism is about; a deep fear of equality and perceived threats to their privileged position in society. Hence, going down with the ship (a good economy & status quo) seem more rational than changing course.
- ip26 6y ago
  Not to mention the implied canard that economists are the only ones suited to design policy (despite not being educated in climate science and lacking actual tacit knowledge on what drives global climate)
  - sparkie 6y ago
    Actually, that isn't the implied canard, but this is what happens in reality: intellectual economists drive policy which affects us all - more often than not negatively. They don't have all of the information and can't make decisions that are best for individuals. My implication is that individuals are the best suited to decide how their wealth is used. There should not exist policy makers who interfere in the market. Policymakers, no matter how noble they might be, are never going to know enough about the conditions individual humans face, and can therefore never know how that money is best utilized. Climate science is heavily, almost entirely subsidized by taxpayer money, and the products which they are selling are more taxation. This is the driving force behind the climate alarmism - give up more of your wealth and freedoms to a benevolent State who will protect you from this scary thing. If they were selling actual solutions which made people's lives easier, I wouldn't be so sceptical.
    - jahaja 6y ago
      This just confirms my point even further.
- sparkie 6y ago
imtringued 6y ago
I'm not sure what you are talking about. Even without climate change a world without dependence on fossil fuels is still significantly better than one with where we still burn fossil fuels. If all the "impossible" technologies necessary to stop climate change existed today then I don't think anyone would say we should go back to the old fossil fuel days.
- sparkie 6y ago
  > If all the "impossible" technologies necessary to stop climate change existed today then I don't think anyone would say we should go back to the old fossil fuel days. The argument isn't about whether or not fossil fuels should be used in the presence of hypothetical cheaper energy harvesting devices in the future, but whether or not fossil fuels should be used now, while they are cheap, abundant and available to everyone. I have recommended a book above: The moral case for fossil fuels. It may not be obvious what I'm talking about if you live in a well developed nation with adequate sunlight and you can easily accumulate some capital and install PV panels on your rooftop (and you're OK ignoring the devastating environmental impact of PV). The moral case for fossil fuels is about the underdeveloped nations whose economies are held back by low carbon agendas. The most developed nations are doing quite well (perhaps not well enough for some) on clean energy, but poorer nations are nowhere near at the same level. They are decades behind on technology and general standards of living. The argument for fossil fuels is that we should attempt to accelerate these economies as quickly as possible to bring them up to global standards, and one of the primary tools for enabling this is the availability of cheap and abundant energy. Fossil fuels provide this, even if they're not "clean." Developed nations have cleaner air, cleaner water, much lower birth rates, fewer pollutants and better environmental protection programmes. We can't expect poorer nations to abide by the same standards of the developed world when they do not enjoy the same standards of living. The longer the delay in bringing them up to standard, the more environmental damage will be done in the long term. I am all for cheap and abundant clean energy and the idea of phasing out fossil fuels, but holding back progress for alarming unrealistic predictions is not the way to go about it. Focus should be on innovation and not subsidy. But it is still questionable whether or not an increased CO2 atmosphere is an inherently bad thing. In greenhouses, a doubling of CO2 can lead to more than a doubling of plant mass growth. This is an experiment you can reproduce at home, unlike most climate "science". If more focus were placed on greening the earth, reforesting instead of destroying entire ecosystems to grow soy, palm and canola, I might not be so sceptical of the real aims of these climate scientists and their mouthpieces. The aversion to nuclear energy, which is very clean, is the most tell-tale sign that many "environmentalists" are nothing of the kind.
sarakayakomzin 6y ago
>Climate hysterics want to avoid responsibility for the economic damage that their carbon-neutral policies are going to have on society. imagine heating the globe until humans can't survive and being upset about economic policies. get that myopia checked out.

aggronn 6y ago

Picking this new world order climate hysterics cabal conspiracy theory malarkey apart a little bit.... > Climate hysterics want to avoid responsibility for the economic damage that their carbon-neutral policies are going to have on society. Not a great start. I don't know of any clean energy policy advocates who _arent totally enthusiastic_ about an opportunity to take full responsibility (and credit) for migrating to a clean economy in the next 10 years. Who, at this point, is ignoring the economics of climate change? Nowhere in here are you even claiming that there is a specific, agree'd upon "consequence" of transitioning to renewable energy, you're just raising a vague spectre of economic collapse, which only implies that policy-makers haven't considered that possibility...which is provably false. > Many of the most ardent callers for climate action are themselves not even climate scientists, but merely offload their thought processing to the intellectuals who are. Sounds like a how functioning, science based democratic society should operate, right? > Almost without fail, neither them, nor the intellectual are educated in economics. Absolutely right--scientists aren't politicians aren't economists. Multi-disciplinary public policy requires input from many kinds of 'intellectuals' (also, hn is a weird place to be calling people who trained in, and do, a science professionally 'intellectuals', as if its a bad thing). The alternative is that we live in a fictional autocracy lead by a god-like genius who is singular, all-knowing, and benevolent. > The reality is that nobody can work out the second and effects and so on for these drastic changes, because they have incomplete information. Semi-valid criticism. Implies no one has _any_ idea, but its true no one an predict the future with absolute certainty. > The intellectuals and 'thought leaders' themselves have a fraction of a percent of the actual tacit knowledge that drives economic activity. The knowledge is very widely distributed, which is why central planning is less efficient than the market almost all of the time. Ah... here is the god you're alluding to--anarcho-capitalism? The distributed knowledge of the market economy knows best. There is even an anarcho-capitalist case _for_ renewable energy. If you could just price in the cost of emissions and remove subsidies of oil and gas, we would be decades ahead of where we are today on this issue. > it is misplaced fear due to grossly exaggerated climate scare claims, drummed up by the status-quo. So "climate hysterics" are the powers that be, and oil and gas is punk-rock. I guess on a millenia scale this is true. > They won't put their own money or action where their mouths are, but demand it of others - many of whom are not in such fortunate positions. Waiting to hear about the "climate hysteric" who thinks the solution requires higher taxes (or even, significantly higher cost of living) for people who make under $30k/year. The only reason this would be part of a proposal by a reasonable person is because they know they are negotiating against cynical "ideologues" who personally benefit more from the status quo of an oil and gas dependent economy, who will require this provision for a vote, because they know it sabotages the underlying goals. Why vote no when you can pass intentionally hamstrung legislation? An overarching criticism of parent's point of view: The general theme of their criticism is that "climate hysterical intellectuals" don't know better than the singular, all knowing free market. It barely leaves room for any public policy position at all--which ignores the fact that the current market status quo is driven massively by public policy that has been in effect now for several generations. To say the current place even approximates a "natural, optimal equilibrium" is a gross misunderstanding of 300 years of carbon policy and political and cultural entrenchment.

tonyedgecombe 6y ago

Try to look from another lens. Climate change deniers want to avoid responsibility for the economic damage that their polluting policies are going to have on society. They want accountability from others, but not themselves. How many have done the calculations to work out the second and third order effects of their oil burning agenda? ...

jahaja 6y ago

> economic damage > nor the intellectual are educated in economics > the actual tacit knowledge that drives economic activity > Almost always, it is the same crowds who babble on about equality and wealth distribution too That whole reply pretty much sums up what most right-wing climate scepticism is about; a deep fear of equality and perceived threats to their privileged position in society. Hence, going down with the ship (a good economy & status quo) seem more rational than changing course.

ip26 6y ago
Not to mention the implied canard that economists are the only ones suited to design policy (despite not being educated in climate science and lacking actual tacit knowledge on what drives global climate)
- sparkie 6y ago
  Actually, that isn't the implied canard, but this is what happens in reality: intellectual economists drive policy which affects us all - more often than not negatively. They don't have all of the information and can't make decisions that are best for individuals. My implication is that individuals are the best suited to decide how their wealth is used. There should not exist policy makers who interfere in the market. Policymakers, no matter how noble they might be, are never going to know enough about the conditions individual humans face, and can therefore never know how that money is best utilized. Climate science is heavily, almost entirely subsidized by taxpayer money, and the products which they are selling are more taxation. This is the driving force behind the climate alarmism - give up more of your wealth and freedoms to a benevolent State who will protect you from this scary thing. If they were selling actual solutions which made people's lives easier, I wouldn't be so sceptical.
  - jahaja 6y ago
    This just confirms my point even further.
sparkie 6y ago

imtringued 6y ago

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Even without climate change a world without dependence on fossil fuels is still significantly better than one with where we still burn fossil fuels. If all the "impossible" technologies necessary to stop climate change existed today then I don't think anyone would say we should go back to the old fossil fuel days.

sparkie 6y ago
> If all the "impossible" technologies necessary to stop climate change existed today then I don't think anyone would say we should go back to the old fossil fuel days. The argument isn't about whether or not fossil fuels should be used in the presence of hypothetical cheaper energy harvesting devices in the future, but whether or not fossil fuels should be used now, while they are cheap, abundant and available to everyone. I have recommended a book above: The moral case for fossil fuels. It may not be obvious what I'm talking about if you live in a well developed nation with adequate sunlight and you can easily accumulate some capital and install PV panels on your rooftop (and you're OK ignoring the devastating environmental impact of PV). The moral case for fossil fuels is about the underdeveloped nations whose economies are held back by low carbon agendas. The most developed nations are doing quite well (perhaps not well enough for some) on clean energy, but poorer nations are nowhere near at the same level. They are decades behind on technology and general standards of living. The argument for fossil fuels is that we should attempt to accelerate these economies as quickly as possible to bring them up to global standards, and one of the primary tools for enabling this is the availability of cheap and abundant energy. Fossil fuels provide this, even if they're not "clean." Developed nations have cleaner air, cleaner water, much lower birth rates, fewer pollutants and better environmental protection programmes. We can't expect poorer nations to abide by the same standards of the developed world when they do not enjoy the same standards of living. The longer the delay in bringing them up to standard, the more environmental damage will be done in the long term. I am all for cheap and abundant clean energy and the idea of phasing out fossil fuels, but holding back progress for alarming unrealistic predictions is not the way to go about it. Focus should be on innovation and not subsidy. But it is still questionable whether or not an increased CO2 atmosphere is an inherently bad thing. In greenhouses, a doubling of CO2 can lead to more than a doubling of plant mass growth. This is an experiment you can reproduce at home, unlike most climate "science". If more focus were placed on greening the earth, reforesting instead of destroying entire ecosystems to grow soy, palm and canola, I might not be so sceptical of the real aims of these climate scientists and their mouthpieces. The aversion to nuclear energy, which is very clean, is the most tell-tale sign that many "environmentalists" are nothing of the kind.

sarakayakomzin 6y ago

>Climate hysterics want to avoid responsibility for the economic damage that their carbon-neutral policies are going to have on society. imagine heating the globe until humans can't survive and being upset about economic policies. get that myopia checked out.