4 ms·

Except here the options are not as simple as "stopping smoking" which in this context would be "stop emitting co2" doing so would cause extreme economic harm,

by syshum 5y ago

Except here the options are not as simple as "stopping smoking" which in this context would be "stop emitting co2" doing so would cause extreme economic harm, lower living standards SUBSTANTIALLY, and be very regressive to the poorest people. Smoking is not needed for life to function, energy production, food production, heating, etc is very much needed for life to function.

notreallyserio 5y ago
Put another way, ignoring the risks and contining our reliance on CO2 and methane and etc emissions has put our economy and living standards in jeopardy, especially for the poorest people. It didn't have to go down this way but certain powerful folks have been more interested in maintaining the status quo than making improvements, and that pattern continues today. Even basic economic concepts like externalities are ignored because folks embrace thought-terminating terms like "job-killing policies".
triceratops 5y ago
> cause extreme economic harm, lower living standards SUBSTANTIALLY, and be very regressive to the poorest people. Isn't that a bit hyperbolic? "Extreme" economic harm? Define extreme, please. Also account for all the increased economic activity related to climate change mitigation (renewable energy, carbon capture, construction). "lower living standards SUBSTANTIALLY" - Climate change will do that too. Try cooling your house cheaply, or getting enough freshwater or fresh produce when the climate goes haywire. "be very regressive to the poorest people." - Again, needs context. The "poorest people" are precisely the ones who will suffer the most if climate change isn't averted. The Indian subcontinent, to take one example, will have acute water shortages and/or sea-level rises (in Bangladesh) which will lead to crop failures and famine.

4 ms·

Except here the options are not as simple as "stopping smoking" which in this context would be "stop emitting co2" doing so would cause extreme economic harm,

by syshum 5y ago

notreallyserio 5y ago
Put another way, ignoring the risks and contining our reliance on CO2 and methane and etc emissions has put our economy and living standards in jeopardy, especially for the poorest people. It didn't have to go down this way but certain powerful folks have been more interested in maintaining the status quo than making improvements, and that pattern continues today. Even basic economic concepts like externalities are ignored because folks embrace thought-terminating terms like "job-killing policies".
triceratops 5y ago
> cause extreme economic harm, lower living standards SUBSTANTIALLY, and be very regressive to the poorest people. Isn't that a bit hyperbolic? "Extreme" economic harm? Define extreme, please. Also account for all the increased economic activity related to climate change mitigation (renewable energy, carbon capture, construction). "lower living standards SUBSTANTIALLY" - Climate change will do that too. Try cooling your house cheaply, or getting enough freshwater or fresh produce when the climate goes haywire. "be very regressive to the poorest people." - Again, needs context. The "poorest people" are precisely the ones who will suffer the most if climate change isn't averted. The Indian subcontinent, to take one example, will have acute water shortages and/or sea-level rises (in Bangladesh) which will lead to crop failures and famine.