5 ms·

Number 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

Number 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 ago
That 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 ago
  That 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 ago
    I 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
Number 2 is the only realistic plan, and all other plans I have seen simply moves up the "horrific suffering for billions" and/or "lower quality of life for everyone" in a "rich" nation (and often further limited to the US being the only nation that needs to pay)
- prottog 4y ago
  > for everyone" in a "rich" nation Not at all! The collapse of the Sri Lankan agricultural sector shows that plenty of people in poorer countries will also suffer in the pursuit of climate idealism.

freedomben 4y ago

That 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 ago
That 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 ago
  I 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

Number 2 is the only realistic plan, and all other plans I have seen simply moves up the "horrific suffering for billions" and/or "lower quality of life for everyone" in a "rich" nation (and often further limited to the US being the only nation that needs to pay)

prottog 4y ago
> for everyone" in a "rich" nation Not at all! The collapse of the Sri Lankan agricultural sector shows that plenty of people in poorer countries will also suffer in the pursuit of climate idealism.