4 ms·

I don’t know if this is addressed by this article (I cant read it because paywall) but I’m gonna make a leap of assumption—because this is the economist and are

I don’t know if this is addressed by this article (I cant read it because paywall) but I’m gonna make a leap of assumption—because this is the economist and are likely to be guilty. I’m seeing more and more of a new kind type of climate denialism pop up lately, which I like to call climate optimism. A climate optimist is aware that the climate crisis is real, is caused by humans, and is an existential threat to humanity. However, they claim that the worst of the climate crisis has already been solved with technology and capitalism. I.e. they think that the current and developing technology solution will prevent more climate disasters and now it is just up to the free market to apply it. In other words, there is nothing more that governments must do but to stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry (sometimes natural gas is excepted). A prime example of a climate optimist is the youtube channel Kurzgesagt. But I see this a lot from people that like to cite Our World In Data. This is climate denial because it completely ignores global trends in carbon emissions, production capabilities, infrastructure rollout in poorer economies, etc. We are still increasing our carbon emissions (albeit at a slower rate) at a time when we needed to have stopped releasing CO2 altogether. EDIT: After reading the article (as someone posted an archive) I see—to my surprise—that this article is not guilty of my accusations.

DubiousPusher 4y ago
Despite the drubbing the Economist is taking in this thread (and I'm no fan myself) this article is pretty much innocent of this accusation. The article simply points to some modeling which indicates European/American subsidies for green energy and the increased friction in the global oil/gas markets created by the war in Ukraine have accelerated energy transitions in advanced economies. It makes no conclusions about the future beyond these models and does not hand-wave away climate risk at all.
dotnet00 4y ago
I feel like it's telling that you need a break from the internet if someone being optimistic that progress is being made on addressing climate change at all is problematic to you. You point to Kurzgesagt, and while I'm not much of a fan of them, their most recent video on climate change presents a view that the situation is dire but not hopeless, which is a healthy view to present if you're aiming to convince people to care.
luckylion 4y ago
I'm not sure what your position is. Technology won't progress? Investing money into research and scaling up production doesn't lower the marginal cost? Monetary incentives aren't better at getting things done? We can't "avert the crisis" without going back to adopting pre-industrial lifestyles/communism/veganism or wear sheep wool clothes? What's the "appropriate" response that you'd feel okay with?
- runarberg 4y ago
  My position is pretty much “yes” to all of these questions. Technology won’t progress at the rate needed to prevent the worst of the climate disaster, we need to sink way more money into research and production, not only to lower the cost, but to flat out dump infrastructure where it is needed (yes this means Germany should pay for solar plants and high voltage powerlines in Tanzania and not expect anything in return). This is a crisis which was caused by government inaction, and it won’t go away until government takes action. If they had acted in the late 90s or the early 2000s (like they were asked to; and according to popular opinion at the time) then perhaps the steps wouldn’t need to be as drastic, but as it stands, we will probably need to print a bunch of money to build out the infrastructure, subsidize the home improvements, etc. and enforce a hard limit on polluting industries. I’m aware that printing money causes inflation, but because of government inaction we simply are running out of options, the climate disaster is infinitely worse than inflation. I don’t think communism will save us actually (and we don’t have time to wait for a communist revolution anyway), and forcing people to adopt veganism or pre-industrial lifestyles isn’t gonna work either. But we do have to put a limit to carbon entitled behavior. We do have to limit the number of private cars on the roads, and the amount of meat in the western dinner plate. We could have done it gradually but at this point there is no option left but a hefty carbon tax which will prove fatal to many of these industries. What is the appropriate response I feel okay with? Not denying the severity of the situation. Claiming that we’ve solved the climate crisis is a simple lie (this article doesn’t do that by the way; I think it is important to mention that).
  - krageon 4y ago
    I don't disagree with you. I invite you to take a step back and stand in the shoes of someone who is exhibiting "carbon entitled behaviour". Do you think what you're saying here and your hardline stance on measures is going to get them to behave closer to your ideal? If not, how else are you going to make this happen? A lot of these people are politicians, so "just impose a higher tax" isn't a measure, it is a result of a measure (that measure being convincing those people to do what you want). You say we don't have time for a communist revolution. We don't have time for any kind of revolution, because revolutions famously don't really work or improve anything. This is extra relevant because your other statements still lean on the premise of a revolution happening, just one with consequences you think are more important than communism.
colechristensen 4y ago
I notice quite the opposite, not just about climate but many topics. Doomsaying. People who will only believe and repeat something if the narrative is “this is the worst things have ever been and it is continuing to get worse”. When confronted with information to the contrary, there is always a scope change “What about x”.

DubiousPusher 4y ago

Despite the drubbing the Economist is taking in this thread (and I'm no fan myself) this article is pretty much innocent of this accusation. The article simply points to some modeling which indicates European/American subsidies for green energy and the increased friction in the global oil/gas markets created by the war in Ukraine have accelerated energy transitions in advanced economies. It makes no conclusions about the future beyond these models and does not hand-wave away climate risk at all.

dotnet00 4y ago

I feel like it's telling that you need a break from the internet if someone being optimistic that progress is being made on addressing climate change at all is problematic to you. You point to Kurzgesagt, and while I'm not much of a fan of them, their most recent video on climate change presents a view that the situation is dire but not hopeless, which is a healthy view to present if you're aiming to convince people to care.

luckylion 4y ago

I'm not sure what your position is. Technology won't progress? Investing money into research and scaling up production doesn't lower the marginal cost? Monetary incentives aren't better at getting things done? We can't "avert the crisis" without going back to adopting pre-industrial lifestyles/communism/veganism or wear sheep wool clothes? What's the "appropriate" response that you'd feel okay with?

runarberg 4y ago
My position is pretty much “yes” to all of these questions. Technology won’t progress at the rate needed to prevent the worst of the climate disaster, we need to sink way more money into research and production, not only to lower the cost, but to flat out dump infrastructure where it is needed (yes this means Germany should pay for solar plants and high voltage powerlines in Tanzania and not expect anything in return). This is a crisis which was caused by government inaction, and it won’t go away until government takes action. If they had acted in the late 90s or the early 2000s (like they were asked to; and according to popular opinion at the time) then perhaps the steps wouldn’t need to be as drastic, but as it stands, we will probably need to print a bunch of money to build out the infrastructure, subsidize the home improvements, etc. and enforce a hard limit on polluting industries. I’m aware that printing money causes inflation, but because of government inaction we simply are running out of options, the climate disaster is infinitely worse than inflation. I don’t think communism will save us actually (and we don’t have time to wait for a communist revolution anyway), and forcing people to adopt veganism or pre-industrial lifestyles isn’t gonna work either. But we do have to put a limit to carbon entitled behavior. We do have to limit the number of private cars on the roads, and the amount of meat in the western dinner plate. We could have done it gradually but at this point there is no option left but a hefty carbon tax which will prove fatal to many of these industries. What is the appropriate response I feel okay with? Not denying the severity of the situation. Claiming that we’ve solved the climate crisis is a simple lie (this article doesn’t do that by the way; I think it is important to mention that).
- krageon 4y ago
  I don't disagree with you. I invite you to take a step back and stand in the shoes of someone who is exhibiting "carbon entitled behaviour". Do you think what you're saying here and your hardline stance on measures is going to get them to behave closer to your ideal? If not, how else are you going to make this happen? A lot of these people are politicians, so "just impose a higher tax" isn't a measure, it is a result of a measure (that measure being convincing those people to do what you want). You say we don't have time for a communist revolution. We don't have time for any kind of revolution, because revolutions famously don't really work or improve anything. This is extra relevant because your other statements still lean on the premise of a revolution happening, just one with consequences you think are more important than communism.

colechristensen 4y ago

I notice quite the opposite, not just about climate but many topics. Doomsaying. People who will only believe and repeat something if the narrative is “this is the worst things have ever been and it is continuing to get worse”. When confronted with information to the contrary, there is always a scope change “What about x”.