5 ms·

> 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 li

> 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.

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.