47 ms·

I think when trying to predict the future of climate change, you’ll find every model imperfect (even if it can tell you important truths about what may happen).

I think when trying to predict the future of climate change, you’ll find every model imperfect (even if it can tell you important truths about what may happen). If you try to make specific predictions, you’re going to turn people off. It’s far better to frame it as a matter of, “Look we don’t know what’ll happen and since we only have 1 planet and pollution is bad, we’re going to try and minimize the impact we have, because we don’t get a second chance.” And then just take it from there. We don’t need to understand what’s inside the box when it arrives on our doorstep. We just have to avoid opening it.

hcurtiss 5y ago
But, if that were the right approach, you’d never change anything. We’d have never left the caves. The question is not whether we alter the natural environment. It’s whether we have reason to believe the benefits of those changes may outweigh the costs.
- wallacoloo 5y ago
  leaving the caves was an individual- or tribal-level decision. in fact, many groups did not leave the caves, only some did. it’s a poor metaphor for climate change because we don’t have the option of exploring both paths simultaneously as a species in the same way our ancestors did with those caves. cost/benefit analysis, i do agree with though. or maybe a “risk-adjusted” cost/benefit. the biggest disagreement i have is with people who think climate change is inherently bad, rather than believing specific outcomes/effects of climate change are bad. when you unpack climate change often the bad things are common across catastrophes caused by other disruptions, e.g. food/water insecurity is something we could see both from climate change or large-scale war. certain ways of thinking about the situation might lead a person to believe that addressing these effects is the way to make humanity more bulletproof, rather than trying to prevent the several distinct causes (CO2 emissions being one of them) that lead to the real problems. though it’s never an all-or-nothing, more like “reduce the causes to the point that you’re not reducing our ability to respond to the effects”. cost/benefit analysis, like you say.
roenxi 5y ago
> ... and since we only have 1 planet and pollution is bad ... There is a high correlation and probably causal relationship between increasing global pollution and improved living standards. It is extremely unclear that "pollution is bad". Someone taking a strictly data driven approach could reasonably conclude that pollution is good. There is a reason that the pro-environment types are struggling to have an impact on actual policy. Their ideas have, up until very recently with the relative cheapness of solar and wind, been likely to doom us all.
- onion2k 5y ago
  This is why compartmentalizing things as "good" or "bad" is unhelpful. It's rarely so simple. Sure, there are aspects of polluting behaviours that ostensibly raise the quality of life for many people, but that doesn't mean you should ignore the long term impact of that behavior, especially if it has a provably negative impact on the planet. You have to look at the whole issue, not just the short term positives.
  - boppo1 5y ago
    > provably negative impact on the planet. There is nothing negative happening to the planet. We couldn't hurt it if we tried. "Human life supporting environment" is what's at stake.
    - letitbeirie 5y ago
      > We couldn’t hurt it if we tried Even if we dug up every gram of fissile material on earth, made it into a bomb, and detonated it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyECrGp-Sw8&t=249 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyECrGp-Sw8&t=249
- HPsquared 5y ago
  While I agree there seems to be a positive correlation, the argument reminds me of this classic video from the Onion: [0] https://youtu.be/nJ4K0hHin9s https://youtu.be/nJ4K0hHin9s "China Celebrates Status as Number One Polluter" "The labor of the people has made the sky black with the smoke of progress... We are overjoyed." "Cancer is a very modern disease" "If pollution ruins a river, we will build a new river"
kajecounterhack 5y ago
> If you try to make specific predictions, you’re going to turn people off. I think it's fuzzier than that. Like, I think it's extremely useful to say out loud that climate change will cause large tidal events in the relative short term (sea level rise in the long term). And that an immediate action is for cities like Venice, New Orleans, and Miami to ready themselves for that. It's specific and should be motivating for a large group of people to do something (or risk losing their homes and possibly lives). You have to hope they connect it to the larger picture of things happening too. > We don’t need to understand what’s inside the box when it arrives on our doorstep. We just have to avoid opening it. The problem with this is that a lot of folks will do nothing if you don't unpack the box for them and explain how it will affect them.
- otabdeveloper4 5y ago
  > And that an immediate action is for cities like Venice, New Orleans, and Miami to ready themselves for that. If you really believe in what you say, now is the time to go short on housing in these (mega-expensive) cities and re-invest your incredible profits into clean energy. Alas, nobody is actually serious about what they say, on both sides of the so-called "debate".
rmbyrro 5y ago
Isn't this line of thought very similar to how the Roman Church guided people in the past? Results were not astonishingly good...

hcurtiss 5y ago

But, if that were the right approach, you’d never change anything. We’d have never left the caves. The question is not whether we alter the natural environment. It’s whether we have reason to believe the benefits of those changes may outweigh the costs.

wallacoloo 5y ago
leaving the caves was an individual- or tribal-level decision. in fact, many groups did not leave the caves, only some did. it’s a poor metaphor for climate change because we don’t have the option of exploring both paths simultaneously as a species in the same way our ancestors did with those caves. cost/benefit analysis, i do agree with though. or maybe a “risk-adjusted” cost/benefit. the biggest disagreement i have is with people who think climate change is inherently bad, rather than believing specific outcomes/effects of climate change are bad. when you unpack climate change often the bad things are common across catastrophes caused by other disruptions, e.g. food/water insecurity is something we could see both from climate change or large-scale war. certain ways of thinking about the situation might lead a person to believe that addressing these effects is the way to make humanity more bulletproof, rather than trying to prevent the several distinct causes (CO2 emissions being one of them) that lead to the real problems. though it’s never an all-or-nothing, more like “reduce the causes to the point that you’re not reducing our ability to respond to the effects”. cost/benefit analysis, like you say.

roenxi 5y ago

> ... and since we only have 1 planet and pollution is bad ... There is a high correlation and probably causal relationship between increasing global pollution and improved living standards. It is extremely unclear that "pollution is bad". Someone taking a strictly data driven approach could reasonably conclude that pollution is good. There is a reason that the pro-environment types are struggling to have an impact on actual policy. Their ideas have, up until very recently with the relative cheapness of solar and wind, been likely to doom us all.

onion2k 5y ago
This is why compartmentalizing things as "good" or "bad" is unhelpful. It's rarely so simple. Sure, there are aspects of polluting behaviours that ostensibly raise the quality of life for many people, but that doesn't mean you should ignore the long term impact of that behavior, especially if it has a provably negative impact on the planet. You have to look at the whole issue, not just the short term positives.
- boppo1 5y ago
  > provably negative impact on the planet. There is nothing negative happening to the planet. We couldn't hurt it if we tried. "Human life supporting environment" is what's at stake.
  - letitbeirie 5y ago
    > We couldn’t hurt it if we tried Even if we dug up every gram of fissile material on earth, made it into a bomb, and detonated it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyECrGp-Sw8&t=249 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyECrGp-Sw8&t=249
HPsquared 5y ago
While I agree there seems to be a positive correlation, the argument reminds me of this classic video from the Onion: [0] https://youtu.be/nJ4K0hHin9s https://youtu.be/nJ4K0hHin9s "China Celebrates Status as Number One Polluter" "The labor of the people has made the sky black with the smoke of progress... We are overjoyed." "Cancer is a very modern disease" "If pollution ruins a river, we will build a new river"

kajecounterhack 5y ago

> If you try to make specific predictions, you’re going to turn people off. I think it's fuzzier than that. Like, I think it's extremely useful to say out loud that climate change will cause large tidal events in the relative short term (sea level rise in the long term). And that an immediate action is for cities like Venice, New Orleans, and Miami to ready themselves for that. It's specific and should be motivating for a large group of people to do something (or risk losing their homes and possibly lives). You have to hope they connect it to the larger picture of things happening too. > We don’t need to understand what’s inside the box when it arrives on our doorstep. We just have to avoid opening it. The problem with this is that a lot of folks will do nothing if you don't unpack the box for them and explain how it will affect them.

otabdeveloper4 5y ago
> And that an immediate action is for cities like Venice, New Orleans, and Miami to ready themselves for that. If you really believe in what you say, now is the time to go short on housing in these (mega-expensive) cities and re-invest your incredible profits into clean energy. Alas, nobody is actually serious about what they say, on both sides of the so-called "debate".

rmbyrro 5y ago

Isn't this line of thought very similar to how the Roman Church guided people in the past? Results were not astonishingly good...