3 ms·
> We should do something. Oh, we (the global "we") will, eventually. It's just that the incentives for politicians are to let crises get bad before acting, so
by tuatoru 5y ago
> We should do something.
Oh, we (the global "we") will, eventually. It's just that the incentives for politicians are to let crises get bad before acting, so that people notice them and remember them.
No-one (well hardly anyone) remembers people who stopped a catastrophe from happening in the first place. For example, Stanislav Petrov ought to have a statue in every town in the world.[1] But "who's he?" is what you get when you mention him.
In the case of climate change, when the effects are bad enough for politicians to act, their actions will be draconian but ineffective. I can't offer any Disney ending to the story, but we must carry on anyway. It won't be the end of the world, just a much worse future than we might have had.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
- ncr100 5y agoSo - laws and regulations need changing. We have science and easily observable evidence to guide this change. Just need to do it now. Intransigent politicians will be out, and politicians who're in-step with the populace will be in. 2.5% improvement since last US Congress electoral cycle, of more politicians who acknowledge climate science. Climate deniers: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2021/03/30/497685/climate-deniers-117th-congress/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2021/03/3... Still with 32% (139 of 435) denying climate science, we have a ways to go. Totals: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members
- Kye 5y agoPeople still talk like the y2k bug was nothing because of all the hard work done to prepare for it.