4 ms·

We’re in need of pragmatists. There is an optimal balance between climate action and business as usual. Calls for extreme curtailment of fossil fuel usage for e

We’re in need of pragmatists. There is an optimal balance between climate action and business as usual. Calls for extreme curtailment of fossil fuel usage for example would lower quality of life beyond what global warming will do.

jltsiren 4y ago
There are many optimal balances, depending on how you choose to discount long-term outcomes. Also, as Europe has just learned, sudden forced changes to energy infrastructure are less destructive than many people would have predicted.
time_to_smile 4y ago
> would lower quality of life beyond what global warming will do. Source on this? Climate crisis could quite possibly lead to extinction of humans and most life on Earth [0]. Now I do want to emphasized the word could. Extinction events are certainly "on the table", but certainly not a certainty. However this is the true essence of the reason why we'll never stop climate change. The immediate cost of stopping or even slowing is high, and certain. The cost of not stopping it, is often considered higher, but is always probabilistic and less certain in nature. Compounding this is that the more we rely on non-renewable hydro-carbons, the more painful it is to reverse or even slow our march towards catastrophic climate change, while at the same time the cost of not stopping it becomes less uncertain. For example in 1900 it would have been incredibly easy to slow economic progress in order to prevent climate change, but the uncertainty around the cost of not slowing progress was very high, so the perceived expected value of stopping our march toward climate change was much lower than the present time expected cost. It is strange to see calls for moderate pragmatism when our current state has been accelerating CO2 emissions. We're, quite literally, stepping on the gas to meet whatever future awaits us. 0. See Peter D. Ward's "Under a Green Sky" for one example scenario.
- MaxHoppersGhost 4y ago
  The climate crisis won’t lead to human extinction. Hard to take anything you say seriously after that first statement.
  - time_to_smile 4y ago
    What about Peter Ward's research do you find unconvincing? Of course it's absurd to treat it as a certainty, but the geological evidence of the destruction to life caused by past period of rapid CO2 escalation are at the very least a bit concerning.
staunton 4y ago
> Calls for extreme curtailment of fossil fuel usage for example would lower quality of life beyond what global warming will do. Depends on whose quality of life you mean. A lot of people (who were never using a lot of fossil fuels to begin with) will be deprived of water, food and shelter. There is a lot of uncertainty concerning tipping points, etc. It seems conceivable to me that in a hunderd years we'll wish we had banned fossil fuels completely this very decade, even starting from now, despite the dramatic effects this would have on economies worldwide. As things are looking now, global civilization collapse as a result of climate change, leading to starvation, migration and war for resources, seems to me a very realistic scenario. You have to discount the future an insane amount to argue today's profits are worth even a small chance of this.
- MaxHoppersGhost 4y ago
  > As things are looking now, global civilization collapse as a result of climate change, leading to starvation, migration and war for resources, seems to me a very realistic scenario. This is pure conjecture and climate fear mongering.
  - staunton 4y ago
    Yes, conjecture. Nobody knows for sure what will happen (although some claim they do). As someone else pointed out, > Calls for extreme curtailment of fossil fuel usage for example would lower quality of life beyond what global warming will do. is also conjecture. If you were to insist on adding a pejorative to that, I suggest "pure conjecture and climate denialism". However, continuing the discussion like this is clearly a waste of time. You probably think your conjecture is more plausible than mine. But you haven't argued that it is or why you think that. And even if it is more plausible, a cost-benefit analysis also takes into account the cost. How unlikely does my scenario have to be to counterbalance the potential insane loss of value? It's also not clear what you mean by "extreme". Some people still think "phasing out fossil fuels ever" is extreme. Is "net zero by 2050" extreme? I absolutely think the word is appropriate, but that a desperate situation requires extreme measures.

jltsiren 4y ago

There are many optimal balances, depending on how you choose to discount long-term outcomes. Also, as Europe has just learned, sudden forced changes to energy infrastructure are less destructive than many people would have predicted.

time_to_smile 4y ago

> would lower quality of life beyond what global warming will do. Source on this? Climate crisis could quite possibly lead to extinction of humans and most life on Earth [0]. Now I do want to emphasized the word could. Extinction events are certainly "on the table", but certainly not a certainty. However this is the true essence of the reason why we'll never stop climate change. The immediate cost of stopping or even slowing is high, and certain. The cost of not stopping it, is often considered higher, but is always probabilistic and less certain in nature. Compounding this is that the more we rely on non-renewable hydro-carbons, the more painful it is to reverse or even slow our march towards catastrophic climate change, while at the same time the cost of not stopping it becomes less uncertain. For example in 1900 it would have been incredibly easy to slow economic progress in order to prevent climate change, but the uncertainty around the cost of not slowing progress was very high, so the perceived expected value of stopping our march toward climate change was much lower than the present time expected cost. It is strange to see calls for moderate pragmatism when our current state has been accelerating CO2 emissions. We're, quite literally, stepping on the gas to meet whatever future awaits us. 0. See Peter D. Ward's "Under a Green Sky" for one example scenario.

MaxHoppersGhost 4y ago
The climate crisis won’t lead to human extinction. Hard to take anything you say seriously after that first statement.
- time_to_smile 4y ago
  What about Peter Ward's research do you find unconvincing? Of course it's absurd to treat it as a certainty, but the geological evidence of the destruction to life caused by past period of rapid CO2 escalation are at the very least a bit concerning.

staunton 4y ago

> Calls for extreme curtailment of fossil fuel usage for example would lower quality of life beyond what global warming will do. Depends on whose quality of life you mean. A lot of people (who were never using a lot of fossil fuels to begin with) will be deprived of water, food and shelter. There is a lot of uncertainty concerning tipping points, etc. It seems conceivable to me that in a hunderd years we'll wish we had banned fossil fuels completely this very decade, even starting from now, despite the dramatic effects this would have on economies worldwide. As things are looking now, global civilization collapse as a result of climate change, leading to starvation, migration and war for resources, seems to me a very realistic scenario. You have to discount the future an insane amount to argue today's profits are worth even a small chance of this.

MaxHoppersGhost 4y ago
> As things are looking now, global civilization collapse as a result of climate change, leading to starvation, migration and war for resources, seems to me a very realistic scenario. This is pure conjecture and climate fear mongering.
- staunton 4y ago
  Yes, conjecture. Nobody knows for sure what will happen (although some claim they do). As someone else pointed out, > Calls for extreme curtailment of fossil fuel usage for example would lower quality of life beyond what global warming will do. is also conjecture. If you were to insist on adding a pejorative to that, I suggest "pure conjecture and climate denialism". However, continuing the discussion like this is clearly a waste of time. You probably think your conjecture is more plausible than mine. But you haven't argued that it is or why you think that. And even if it is more plausible, a cost-benefit analysis also takes into account the cost. How unlikely does my scenario have to be to counterbalance the potential insane loss of value? It's also not clear what you mean by "extreme". Some people still think "phasing out fossil fuels ever" is extreme. Is "net zero by 2050" extreme? I absolutely think the word is appropriate, but that a desperate situation requires extreme measures.