3 ms·

No. I'm saying that lower economic activity and lower ghg emissions are correlated; they move in the same direction.

by missedthecue 5y ago

kadoban 5y ago
They're conditionally correlated. Some ways you touch one touches the other. Same as the ants and the house.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  Yes, you're correct that it's possible to trade some more highly emissive things for less emissive things, such as an ICE car with an electric car, and that won't necessarily lower GDP. But that's not what I'm talking about. Trying to prevent climate change is mostly a massive waste of time, effort, and money if you're only going to knock out a quartile or half of emissions. Even if we get to the point that the world emits 18 billion tons of CO2 per year instead of the 36 billion we do at present, the climate will continue to warm, and so you'll have spent all this time, money, and effort and still be where we are today anyway. So when we're talking about stopping all greenhouse gases and preventing further warming of the planet, you're going to necessarily cripple economic output, and as far as I can detect, it's going to be by a lot more than 2% of GDP.
  - kadoban 5y ago
    > But that's not what I'm talking about. Okay, but is there a reason you're not talking about that, other than that it is bad for your argument? > Even if we get to the point that the world emits 18 billion tons of CO2 per year instead of the 36 billion we do at present, the climate will continue to warm, and so you'll have spent all this time, money, and effort and still be where we are today anyway. Warming isn't binary. Dumping twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere isn't the same thing as half. > So when we're talking about stopping all greenhouse gases and preventing further warming of the planet, you're going to necessarily cripple economic output Is this just a feeling? Seems unmotivated by the rest.

No. I'm saying that lower economic activity and lower ghg emissions are correlated; they move in the same direction.

kadoban 5y ago

They're conditionally correlated. Some ways you touch one touches the other. Same as the ants and the house.

missedthecue 5y ago
Yes, you're correct that it's possible to trade some more highly emissive things for less emissive things, such as an ICE car with an electric car, and that won't necessarily lower GDP. But that's not what I'm talking about. Trying to prevent climate change is mostly a massive waste of time, effort, and money if you're only going to knock out a quartile or half of emissions. Even if we get to the point that the world emits 18 billion tons of CO2 per year instead of the 36 billion we do at present, the climate will continue to warm, and so you'll have spent all this time, money, and effort and still be where we are today anyway. So when we're talking about stopping all greenhouse gases and preventing further warming of the planet, you're going to necessarily cripple economic output, and as far as I can detect, it's going to be by a lot more than 2% of GDP.
- kadoban 5y ago
  > But that's not what I'm talking about. Okay, but is there a reason you're not talking about that, other than that it is bad for your argument? > Even if we get to the point that the world emits 18 billion tons of CO2 per year instead of the 36 billion we do at present, the climate will continue to warm, and so you'll have spent all this time, money, and effort and still be where we are today anyway. Warming isn't binary. Dumping twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere isn't the same thing as half. > So when we're talking about stopping all greenhouse gases and preventing further warming of the planet, you're going to necessarily cripple economic output Is this just a feeling? Seems unmotivated by the rest.