2 ms·
It's important to distinguish between that and skepticism of existential threat claims used to argue that we must radically rearrange society now to combat it.
by goatlover 4y ago
It's important to distinguish between that and skepticism of existential threat claims used to argue that we must radically rearrange society now to combat it. Not everyone agrees on the best approach to handling climate change. That doesn't make them denialists.
If you think society can adapt and a reasonable reduction of CO2 over time is the best approach using market forces, then for example, degrowth sounds like a bad solution. If you think we're doomed in the next decade, then might as well start geoengineering.
- trasz4 4y ago>If you think society can adapt and a reasonable reduction of CO2 over time is the best approach using market forces, then for example Then for example you might be a flat earther too. We've been trying that for past two decades and it's an epic failure.
- goatlover 4y agoOther than the success of electric cars, solar and wind energy. Making use of carbon taxes and funding carbon sequestration efforts can also be incorporated. Removing barriers to building nuclear plants and pumping more funding into fusion research would also help. What will the next couple of decades look like?
- trasz4 4y agoNone of those were caused by market forces.
- nverno 4y agoDenying the climate is changing due to human impact is objectively wrong, like being a flat earther. People have generally accepted this now. Arguments about what to do about it, or if it is a 'big deal', are subjective ones- so there is no right or wrong in most cases.