3 ms·
“Tackling climate change” is going to involve hugely increasing the standard of living for billions of people in the developing world while simultaneously reduc
by paulcole 4y ago
“Tackling climate change” is going to involve hugely increasing the standard of living for billions of people in the developing world while simultaneously reducing it hundreds of millions.
Politicians don’t get elected by saying, “Hey, let’s make things worse for you while we work together to help people you’ll never meet.”
Maybe if 25,000+ people die somewhere in Texas due to some kind of climate catastrophe there’s a chance that’ll be the tipping point. But I really doubt it.
- bpodgursky 4y agoThis isn't true. "Tackling climate change" without radical technology rollouts involves decreasing the standard of living for billions; or at least, preventing them from entering the current carbon-intense developed world. Nigeria, India, and Indonesia aren't going to go along with "oh, yes I know that the West got rich via high-emission carbon-based growth, but we need you to not do the same thing". (On the other hand, reducing emissions in the developed world is already underway, for a real but limited lifestyle cost).
- hammock 4y agoPretty sure y'all are saying the same thing
- bpodgursky 4y agoThey are arguing the burden of "tackling climate change" falls mainly on the developed world, I am saying it's the opposite.
- paulcole 4y agoWe’re the ones who have the most to lose. We should have taken a small hit to avoid catastrophe. But we won’t/didn’t.
- stubish 4y agoTackling climate change does not necessarily reduce the standard of living of hundreds of millions. There certainly is a cost to tackling climate change, and the rich will certainly prefer the masses bear the cost. Over here, the major non-major party's stated policy was to more aggressively tackle climate change and for the rich to pay for it.