3 ms·

> I think we all agree (even the so-called "deniers") that climate change is a serious potential problem What gives you that kind of optimism? > shut down th

> I think we all agree (even the so-called "deniers") that climate change is a serious potential problem What gives you that kind of optimism? > shut down the AC in summer in a desert Lower AC in the summer > turn off the heat in a Scandanavian winter Lower the heat in the winter > restrict energy supplies to developing countries Not a thing. > Current policy prescriptions are going to kill a lot more people than the warming they are trying to prevent Incredibly dubious > Creating more studies about how bad it could be actually hurts the cause of stopping climate change at this point. It doesn't convince anyone. Not when people like you pop up to spout strawmen counter arguments at every point.

starkd 4y ago
Restricting access to cheap reliable energy is definitly going to cost lives. Ask any developing nation and they see the effects. It is one of the biggest issues that comes up whenever they try to get a global agreement. It's why China and India still insist on using coal to generate electricity.
- wombat-man 4y ago
  Yeah I kinda wonder if that's ever going to happen. They aren't using coal because they like it, it's cheap and they have a lot of poor people with very real energy needs.
- wongarsu 4y ago
  Burning coal also costs lives, both directly through pollution, and indirectly through climate change. "X costs lives" isn't a worthwhile argument unless you show that it costs more lives than the alternative.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    Without considering climate change externalities, the math on coal power is that it is clearly very beneficial for human flourishing. Even considering CO2-related externalities, burning coal as a bridge to nuclear and battery technology does seem to be a good option (China is basically doing this), but I'm not sure I've seen a rigorous analysis.
- jandrese 4y ago
  China has been installing more solar than any other nation. Also, continuing to use fossil fuels is going to cost way more lives in the medium and especially long term.
- tzs 4y ago
  If the rest of the world cut back to India's per capita levels of fossil fuel use it would be a tremendous improvement. India's greenhouse gas emissions are 12% of those of the US per capita (around 50% total). Even cutting back to China levels would be a great improvement. China is around 50% of US emissions per capita. And yes, per capita is the correct way to distribute whatever total greenhouse gas allowance we decide we need to live with because the atmosphere is a shared resource that doesn't care about arbitrary political boundaries. For an illustration of why per country makes no sense see the hypothetical here [1]. Where countries are relevant is enforcement, and in developing some sort of system to allow people to trade (directly or indirectly) some of their share of the global greenhouse gas allowance, such as by some sort of cap and trade system or some sort of carbon tariffs on imports/exports. Most countries seem to recognize that to successfully address climate change the rich countries will have to give aid to the developing countries to help them move off of fossil fuels. The big hold out is the US. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31935567 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31935567
  - candiodari 4y ago
    Per-capita doesn't work because denying AC doesn't have the same effect in Nevada and Alaska ... and heating the reverse. There are a lot of places where humans can live "for free" energy-wise, and most places where they can't. I think the energy crisis in Europe makes it very clear that when the choice is between people's livelihoods and climate change: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/08/germany-reactivate-coal-power-plants-russia-curbs-gas-flow https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/08/germany-reacti... So let's get real: we need to get all humans up to at least European per-capita energy expenditure levels. Timing can be discussed, but it's when, not if. And lowering per-capita energy expenditure ... more than 10-20% is just not in the cards.
YetAnotherNick 4y ago
> > I think we all agree (even the so-called "deniers") that climate change is a serious potential problem > What gives you that kind of optimism? I think OP meant that if someone claims that climate change would is not an existential threat, they are claimed as deniers. There is one axis for balancing short term vs long term issues, and so called deniers believes that we are on the in the correct point or right of that in that axis. Activist believes we are in the far left end of the axis, that we are risking long term for fixing short term issues.

starkd 4y ago

Restricting access to cheap reliable energy is definitly going to cost lives. Ask any developing nation and they see the effects. It is one of the biggest issues that comes up whenever they try to get a global agreement. It's why China and India still insist on using coal to generate electricity.

wombat-man 4y ago
Yeah I kinda wonder if that's ever going to happen. They aren't using coal because they like it, it's cheap and they have a lot of poor people with very real energy needs.
wongarsu 4y ago
Burning coal also costs lives, both directly through pollution, and indirectly through climate change. "X costs lives" isn't a worthwhile argument unless you show that it costs more lives than the alternative.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  Without considering climate change externalities, the math on coal power is that it is clearly very beneficial for human flourishing. Even considering CO2-related externalities, burning coal as a bridge to nuclear and battery technology does seem to be a good option (China is basically doing this), but I'm not sure I've seen a rigorous analysis.
jandrese 4y ago
China has been installing more solar than any other nation. Also, continuing to use fossil fuels is going to cost way more lives in the medium and especially long term.
tzs 4y ago
If the rest of the world cut back to India's per capita levels of fossil fuel use it would be a tremendous improvement. India's greenhouse gas emissions are 12% of those of the US per capita (around 50% total). Even cutting back to China levels would be a great improvement. China is around 50% of US emissions per capita. And yes, per capita is the correct way to distribute whatever total greenhouse gas allowance we decide we need to live with because the atmosphere is a shared resource that doesn't care about arbitrary political boundaries. For an illustration of why per country makes no sense see the hypothetical here [1]. Where countries are relevant is enforcement, and in developing some sort of system to allow people to trade (directly or indirectly) some of their share of the global greenhouse gas allowance, such as by some sort of cap and trade system or some sort of carbon tariffs on imports/exports. Most countries seem to recognize that to successfully address climate change the rich countries will have to give aid to the developing countries to help them move off of fossil fuels. The big hold out is the US. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31935567 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31935567
- candiodari 4y ago
  Per-capita doesn't work because denying AC doesn't have the same effect in Nevada and Alaska ... and heating the reverse. There are a lot of places where humans can live "for free" energy-wise, and most places where they can't. I think the energy crisis in Europe makes it very clear that when the choice is between people's livelihoods and climate change: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/08/germany-reactivate-coal-power-plants-russia-curbs-gas-flow https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/08/germany-reacti... So let's get real: we need to get all humans up to at least European per-capita energy expenditure levels. Timing can be discussed, but it's when, not if. And lowering per-capita energy expenditure ... more than 10-20% is just not in the cards.

YetAnotherNick 4y ago

> > I think we all agree (even the so-called "deniers") that climate change is a serious potential problem > What gives you that kind of optimism? I think OP meant that if someone claims that climate change would is not an existential threat, they are claimed as deniers. There is one axis for balancing short term vs long term issues, and so called deniers believes that we are on the in the correct point or right of that in that axis. Activist believes we are in the far left end of the axis, that we are risking long term for fixing short term issues.