8 ms·
That's not a "interesting datapoint" that's an unrelated anecdote. That's the climate change denialism equivalent of "my grandma smoked her whole life and didn
by Wyoming23 4y ago
That's not a "interesting datapoint" that's an unrelated anecdote.
That's the climate change denialism equivalent of "my grandma smoked her whole life and didn't get lung cancer, so these scientists don't know what they're talking about".
- phpisthebest 4y agoIt would not call it denialism I would call it taking a different view that we can or should attempt to stop climate change There are 3 groups 1. People that think we should stop at nothing, including resetting the global economy, to stop climate change 2. People that think Humanity can and will adapt to the changing environment and that is the best course 3. People that think nothing is changing, and everything is fine
- s1artibartfast 4y agoI think you missed the most important group: 4. People that think climate change is real, and investments to mitigate damages should be weighed on a cost/benefit basis. That is to say, for a given change, how much will it hurt people to mitigate it now vs later, given the time value of money and exponential development. People in #1 and #2 dogmatically believe the answer always falls into act now or act later. Luckily, most governments end up taking some sort of a middle road between these extremes.
- ncmncm 4y agoMeaning, of course, tragically.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoIm not actually sure of your meaning.
- ncmncm 4y agoClimate catastrophe is imminent, and governments dragging their feet are directly responsible. It is very far from clear that civilization collapse will be averted.
- phpisthebest 4y agoSo then you are in group 1.... Clearly. Most people disagree
- ncmncm 4y agoNo, because almost everything that could be done about averting climate catastrophe would be massively good for the economy and global prosperity, immediately. It could be uncomfortable for owners of coal mines and oil supply chain companies. You telegraph your sympathies. Global civilization collapse followed by billions starving and thermonuclear war will not end up good for anybody. But with some luck you could die first, something foot-draggers seem to count on. Why should they risk any hint of (expected) discomfort for benefits they would not anyway live to see? What have their grandchildren ever done for them?
- phpisthebest 4y ago>>because almost everything that could be done about averting climate catastrophe would be massively good for the economy and global prosperity, immediately ROFL.... nothing is further from the truth, the cost of "green" energy is massively regressive for people in "rich" nations like the US. Hell just the cost of replacing gas cars with EV's would be HUGE on most people, and EV can not replace every type of vehicle (see people that have to tow anything) That is not getting into the huge problem for norther climates where sure Heat pumps have come a long way but still are not as good as a NatGas for extreme cold climate There are countless other technological problems that will make daily expenses of people massively more costly than they are with traditional energy.
- 4y ago
- Wyoming23 4y agoNumber 1 is a strawman, written to paint people as extremists. Number 2 is naive and glib. Of course "humanity will adapt", but that adaptation will be in the form of horrific suffering for billions and lower quality of life for everyone in the future.
- freedomben 4y agoThat only leaves group 3 then for your personal opinion :-D On a serious note, how would you categorize yourself? i.e. what 4th group would you add?
- Wyoming23 4y agoThat we should be treating climate crisis with the urgency and severity that it warrants and taking immediate action. Create a flat carbon tax to make all products and transportation reflect their true cost rather than letting people profit by poisoning the commons. Remove the artificial barriers to nuclear that make it cost prohibitive to start a new plant. Allocate more resources to re-training fossil fuel industry laborers into new careers. Allocate more resources into finding technology to make lower carbon cement, steel and fertilizer. We don't need to radically alter the existing economy or society. We need to make some minor tweaks so align economic incentives, stop letting people freeload off of polluting activities and allocate tax dollars to programs that are more beneficial.
- prottog 4y agoI agree with many of your points, and absolutely with the point that we should align economic incentives. I further suggest that instead of allocating tax dollars to such research programs, we just cut those taxes. If economic incentives are properly aligned, then there will be plenty of profit motive for private efforts to research lower carbon cement and whatnot. Unless you think that we can have a second Manhattan Project and dedicate half a percent of GDP to that end and get something usable on the other side ;-)
- phpisthebest 4y ago
- HWR_14 4y agoWhere is the reasonable methods to stop climate change. Things like limits on carbon emissions and coal power plants. Or is anything that costs anyone a single dollar "resetting the global economy"
- jjtheblunt 4y agoI'm not sure where you're getting that, as I'm not denying climate change at all. I just thought the longer term cycles not man made are interesting.