5 ms·

In this case it kind of seems like what you'd want to happen is happening: we've been warned about the dangers of climate change under "business as usual" scena

by roca 6y ago

In this case it kind of seems like what you'd want to happen is happening: we've been warned about the dangers of climate change under "business as usual" scenarios, so we're not carrying on "business as usual", but reducing our CO2 emissions. So the question then is quite fundamental: what does it mean to describe a "business as usual" scenario that extrapolates from today? Does that mean carrying on doing what we're currently doing, or does it mean to stop caring about CO2 emissions and go back to "business as usual" ten years ago?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rbanffy 6y ago
Now we must imagine what the impact on policies would be to prematurely say we managed to cut emissions more effectively than predicted.
- Sebb767 6y ago
  But what's the alternative? Ignoring the fact that our data is based on wrong assumptions? Act as if nothing has changed? Sure, this is not good in the short time. But this is already a smoking gun for climate change deniers; if we were to put this under the rug for another decade, it would become a smoking nuke. And imagine the impact of that.
  - bopbeepboop 6y ago
    They would be right to question advocacy groups that have been misleading the public about climate change for multiple decades. The main point of conservatives has been, for over a decade, that the alarmism is overstated and behavioral corrections would eventually adjust us to the point climate change stabilized. Without the extremist “green new deal” interventions. That seems to be true - and activists don’t like it, so they’re just pretending it’s not. Who would respect activists lying for power and profit?
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    We know the assumptions are incorrect. Based on that, do we change course or not? My understanding is that we are reducing emissions faster than predicted and will hit our politically agreed targets sooner than we expected. The political decision to change targets at any given point will be revisited based on what we understand at that time.

by roca 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

rbanffy 6y ago

Now we must imagine what the impact on policies would be to prematurely say we managed to cut emissions more effectively than predicted.

Sebb767 6y ago
But what's the alternative? Ignoring the fact that our data is based on wrong assumptions? Act as if nothing has changed? Sure, this is not good in the short time. But this is already a smoking gun for climate change deniers; if we were to put this under the rug for another decade, it would become a smoking nuke. And imagine the impact of that.
- bopbeepboop 6y ago
  They would be right to question advocacy groups that have been misleading the public about climate change for multiple decades. The main point of conservatives has been, for over a decade, that the alarmism is overstated and behavioral corrections would eventually adjust us to the point climate change stabilized. Without the extremist “green new deal” interventions. That seems to be true - and activists don’t like it, so they’re just pretending it’s not. Who would respect activists lying for power and profit?
- rbanffy 6y ago
  We know the assumptions are incorrect. Based on that, do we change course or not? My understanding is that we are reducing emissions faster than predicted and will hit our politically agreed targets sooner than we expected. The political decision to change targets at any given point will be revisited based on what we understand at that time.