3 ms·

Not to pick on you specifically, but the “economy vs climate” dichotomy is nonsense. The climate crisis is an economic crisis. The real dichotomy is near-term e

Not to pick on you specifically, but the “economy vs climate” dichotomy is nonsense. The climate crisis is an economic crisis. The real dichotomy is near-term economic issues vs long term economic issues. Do we stop incurring credit card debt now or do we go bankrupt in the future?

batshit_beaver 5y ago
Your dichotomy is incorrect as well. We can't "pay off the debt" in the short term without significant and long lasting instability. So the better analogy might be "do we go bankrupt now" or "do we go bankrupt later," and given everything else that's going on in the world today, "later" is definitely preferable.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  Cutting our emissions now will be painful (precisely because we waited so long to do anything). Not cutting our emissions in time will be ruinous. These two outcomes are not in the same ballpark, hence the dichotomy. Moreover, if we collectively choose to do so, we can put the bulk of the burden on the very rich so that the economy—which is driven by middle class spending—remains strong.
  - batshit_beaver 5y ago
    Setting aside the massive issues with the whole "just make the rich pay for it" shtick, climate change is not ruinous. Humans are incredibly adaptable. We can survive just fine in even the worst predicted climate change scenario. We also have plenty of tools for drastic geoengineering if needed. Climate change is not a threat to human livelihood in itself. Humans are a threat to humans. Instability makes humans do crazy shit to each other, orders of magnitude worse than the ongoing slow motion trainwreck of climate change.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      > Setting aside the massive issues with the whole "just make the rich pay for it" shtick, climate change is not ruinous. Humans are incredibly adaptable. We can survive just fine in even the worst predicted climate change scenario. Some of us are aiming a bit higher than the mere survival of humanity as a species. Allowing some significant regression in civilization merely to avoid some short term discomfort is foolishness. > We also have plenty of tools for drastic geoengineering if needed. Completely untested. Hoping for a technical miracle is nice, but I prefer a concrete plan. > Instability makes humans do crazy shit to each other, orders of magnitude worse than the ongoing slow motion trainwreck of climate change. What do you think happens when our access to food, water, and various raw materials becomes inconsistent or goes away in certain places?
      - batshit_beaver 5y ago
        If you want our civilization to thrive, you don't want to force it to go through any radical changes too fast. Climate change is gradual. It won't cause famines and droughts overnight. The places that will become unlivable are already struggling, which is already forcing migration, government action, etc. You're basically suggesting that we tear off the band-aid and immediately transition to the state we will be in in 50-100 years. Doesn't seem like a great idea.

batshit_beaver 5y ago

Your dichotomy is incorrect as well. We can't "pay off the debt" in the short term without significant and long lasting instability. So the better analogy might be "do we go bankrupt now" or "do we go bankrupt later," and given everything else that's going on in the world today, "later" is definitely preferable.

throwaway894345 5y ago
Cutting our emissions now will be painful (precisely because we waited so long to do anything). Not cutting our emissions in time will be ruinous. These two outcomes are not in the same ballpark, hence the dichotomy. Moreover, if we collectively choose to do so, we can put the bulk of the burden on the very rich so that the economy—which is driven by middle class spending—remains strong.
- batshit_beaver 5y ago
  Setting aside the massive issues with the whole "just make the rich pay for it" shtick, climate change is not ruinous. Humans are incredibly adaptable. We can survive just fine in even the worst predicted climate change scenario. We also have plenty of tools for drastic geoengineering if needed. Climate change is not a threat to human livelihood in itself. Humans are a threat to humans. Instability makes humans do crazy shit to each other, orders of magnitude worse than the ongoing slow motion trainwreck of climate change.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > Setting aside the massive issues with the whole "just make the rich pay for it" shtick, climate change is not ruinous. Humans are incredibly adaptable. We can survive just fine in even the worst predicted climate change scenario. Some of us are aiming a bit higher than the mere survival of humanity as a species. Allowing some significant regression in civilization merely to avoid some short term discomfort is foolishness. > We also have plenty of tools for drastic geoengineering if needed. Completely untested. Hoping for a technical miracle is nice, but I prefer a concrete plan. > Instability makes humans do crazy shit to each other, orders of magnitude worse than the ongoing slow motion trainwreck of climate change. What do you think happens when our access to food, water, and various raw materials becomes inconsistent or goes away in certain places?
    - batshit_beaver 5y ago
      If you want our civilization to thrive, you don't want to force it to go through any radical changes too fast. Climate change is gradual. It won't cause famines and droughts overnight. The places that will become unlivable are already struggling, which is already forcing migration, government action, etc. You're basically suggesting that we tear off the band-aid and immediately transition to the state we will be in in 50-100 years. Doesn't seem like a great idea.