3 ms·

This sounds like North Korean authoritarianism. Even the CCP would back away from this. Edit: responding to comment below about CFCs - Equating CFCs with all f

This sounds like North Korean authoritarianism. Even the CCP would back away from this. Edit: responding to comment below about CFCs - Equating CFCs with all fossil fuels is an error of few orders of magnitude in scale. Edit: Those complaining I can't use reply button, it's because of throttling.

dTal 3y ago
Which part don't you agree with? Please be specific. I was careful to spell out every link in the chain. If you agree with the premise and logic, but simply dislike the conclusion, I really don't know what to tell you.
- systemvoltage 3y ago
  Seems like you want to shutdown vast parts of society for climate goals with a top down control. That would lead to deaths of millions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine There is nothing specific to provide you with because you haven’t presented any specific points in the first place. You want to shutdown energy production from fossil fuels. That would be extremely immoral if you think about the consequences. Edit: Responding to the comment below, you're told lies: https://www.humanprogress.org/the-collapse-of-climate-related-deaths-2/ https://www.humanprogress.org/the-collapse-of-climate-relate... Edit: Responding to dTal below - You can't just shut down fossil fuels without killing millions, not to mention complete loss of freedom, our country and everything it stands for. We both have same goals to get rid of fossil fuels, but I disagree with "plenty of alternatives exist". The only alternative we have is nuclear power. That's not looking good. The same environmentalists that want to solve climate change are also against nuclear power, and against any solution to climate change. They want you to not have kids – that's the quiet part. They're also hypocrites. There is no objectivity to how much decarbonization is acceptable, the end goal is to eliminate you. It's a cult.
  - arp242 3y ago
    > you're told lies: https://www.humanprogress.org/the-collapse-of-climate-related-deaths-2/ https://www.humanprogress.org/the-collapse-of-climate-relate... I'll assume the figures in that article are true, but it's missing the point: people aren't talking about current deaths, but about future deaths. Climate change has the potential to globally upset weather patterns in such a way that compensating will be hard, and/or climate change will make entire areas unviable for habitation resulting in large migrations (which, historically, have been very disruptive). All of this is substantially different than "number of hurricane deaths of 1920 vs. 2021". Furthermore, there are also examples where intervention did prevent famine, for example rationing during the second world war in some countries, and I'm sure there are more examples. But there are no dramatic "The famine of 1897 that didn't happen because of effective government measures" Wikipedia pages. You can "prove" anything by linking to some example where things spectacularly failed, but that doesn't really "prove" anything, certainly not for the generic case of all "government interventions". And look, shutting off all fossil fuels from one day to the next would of course be sheer lunacy. But no one is really argueing for that, and what they are argueing for is replacing oil and other fossil fuels, ASAP.
  - polotics 3y ago
    Thanky you systemvoltage for introducing me to humanprogress.org. This graph on "climate related deaths" that manages to pool together deaths of the early 20th century with those of the early 21st, is pure propaganda genius. ...---... Early 20th century "climate deaths" will have been caused by the lack of basic heating and most importantly infrastructure, a problem that very much was solved by the massive usage of cheap oil energy deployed during the 20th century. The same category of "climate deaths" for the early 21st century, has more details on causes, and yeah, sure, disasters where cheap oil is not the solution, but the root cause. ...---... I grant you that many greens have no idea what a sustainable lifestyle looks like: at 2000 Watts for everyone, which optimistically could be a realistic goal, each human is living in maximum 15 square meters of housing. Also, with the CO2 threat being taken seriously, you can only fly in a plane four times maximum in your lifetime... ---... Those that are ready to learn about and accept this kind of constraints want humanity to survive, those that don't, implicitly don't. ...---... The sources for the 2000 Watts is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000-watt_society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000-watt_society ...---... The source for the 4 flights is Jean-Marc Jancovici, look him up.
- peakcoal 3y ago
  I've long been a fan of a carbon tax on imported goods.
musha68k 3y ago
Quite the opposite, by now this seems to be the only way not to fall into chaos -> authoritarianism.
- AstralStorm 3y ago
  It won't work either because the authoritarians will just steal whatever is left and get people to go to war. Sounds familiar? Check a century before, and it was not even close to the catastrophe now.
kbos87 3y ago
If that’s what is required, the focus should be on how we do this with minimal disruption. The fact that you don’t like the medicine doesn’t really matter.
arp242 3y ago
We fixed ozone depletion by the "North Korean authoritarian" ban on CFCs and some other things. It's not that outlandish. If $thing you do affects only you: do whatever you want! Go nuts! If $thing you do affects a substantial number of other people: maybe we need to ensure this doesn't result in you imposing your $thing on the rest of us? These sort of things aren't simple: your freedom to play music at 4am interrupts my freedom to sleep at night.

dTal 3y ago

Which part don't you agree with? Please be specific. I was careful to spell out every link in the chain. If you agree with the premise and logic, but simply dislike the conclusion, I really don't know what to tell you.

systemvoltage 3y ago
Seems like you want to shutdown vast parts of society for climate goals with a top down control. That would lead to deaths of millions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine There is nothing specific to provide you with because you haven’t presented any specific points in the first place. You want to shutdown energy production from fossil fuels. That would be extremely immoral if you think about the consequences. Edit: Responding to the comment below, you're told lies: https://www.humanprogress.org/the-collapse-of-climate-related-deaths-2/ https://www.humanprogress.org/the-collapse-of-climate-relate... Edit: Responding to dTal below - You can't just shut down fossil fuels without killing millions, not to mention complete loss of freedom, our country and everything it stands for. We both have same goals to get rid of fossil fuels, but I disagree with "plenty of alternatives exist". The only alternative we have is nuclear power. That's not looking good. The same environmentalists that want to solve climate change are also against nuclear power, and against any solution to climate change. They want you to not have kids – that's the quiet part. They're also hypocrites. There is no objectivity to how much decarbonization is acceptable, the end goal is to eliminate you. It's a cult.
- arp242 3y ago
  > you're told lies: https://www.humanprogress.org/the-collapse-of-climate-related-deaths-2/ https://www.humanprogress.org/the-collapse-of-climate-relate... I'll assume the figures in that article are true, but it's missing the point: people aren't talking about current deaths, but about future deaths. Climate change has the potential to globally upset weather patterns in such a way that compensating will be hard, and/or climate change will make entire areas unviable for habitation resulting in large migrations (which, historically, have been very disruptive). All of this is substantially different than "number of hurricane deaths of 1920 vs. 2021". Furthermore, there are also examples where intervention did prevent famine, for example rationing during the second world war in some countries, and I'm sure there are more examples. But there are no dramatic "The famine of 1897 that didn't happen because of effective government measures" Wikipedia pages. You can "prove" anything by linking to some example where things spectacularly failed, but that doesn't really "prove" anything, certainly not for the generic case of all "government interventions". And look, shutting off all fossil fuels from one day to the next would of course be sheer lunacy. But no one is really argueing for that, and what they are argueing for is replacing oil and other fossil fuels, ASAP.
- polotics 3y ago
  Thanky you systemvoltage for introducing me to humanprogress.org. This graph on "climate related deaths" that manages to pool together deaths of the early 20th century with those of the early 21st, is pure propaganda genius. ...---... Early 20th century "climate deaths" will have been caused by the lack of basic heating and most importantly infrastructure, a problem that very much was solved by the massive usage of cheap oil energy deployed during the 20th century. The same category of "climate deaths" for the early 21st century, has more details on causes, and yeah, sure, disasters where cheap oil is not the solution, but the root cause. ...---... I grant you that many greens have no idea what a sustainable lifestyle looks like: at 2000 Watts for everyone, which optimistically could be a realistic goal, each human is living in maximum 15 square meters of housing. Also, with the CO2 threat being taken seriously, you can only fly in a plane four times maximum in your lifetime... ---... Those that are ready to learn about and accept this kind of constraints want humanity to survive, those that don't, implicitly don't. ...---... The sources for the 2000 Watts is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000-watt_society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000-watt_society ...---... The source for the 4 flights is Jean-Marc Jancovici, look him up.
peakcoal 3y ago
I've long been a fan of a carbon tax on imported goods.

musha68k 3y ago

Quite the opposite, by now this seems to be the only way not to fall into chaos -> authoritarianism.

AstralStorm 3y ago
It won't work either because the authoritarians will just steal whatever is left and get people to go to war. Sounds familiar? Check a century before, and it was not even close to the catastrophe now.

kbos87 3y ago

If that’s what is required, the focus should be on how we do this with minimal disruption. The fact that you don’t like the medicine doesn’t really matter.

arp242 3y ago

We fixed ozone depletion by the "North Korean authoritarian" ban on CFCs and some other things. It's not that outlandish. If $thing you do affects only you: do whatever you want! Go nuts! If $thing you do affects a substantial number of other people: maybe we need to ensure this doesn't result in you imposing your $thing on the rest of us? These sort of things aren't simple: your freedom to play music at 4am interrupts my freedom to sleep at night.