4 ms·

That it is true or not is irrelevant. Fact is that it will a endless quarrel between scientists, until enough time has passed, where it is either: * forgotten

That it is true or not is irrelevant. Fact is that it will a endless quarrel between scientists, until enough time has passed, where it is either: * forgotten as the problem was not real * too late as the problem was real History will repeat itself subtly, that's the only certainty

Retric 3y ago
Humanity has actually solved many issues brought up by scientists before they caused drastic harm. A few that come to mind are acid rain, smog, DDT, and CFC’s. Catalytic converters in aggregate costs something like 1/2 a trillion dollars for clean air. We don’t hear about Acid rain because sulfur dioxide emissions are down well over 90% thus dealing with the actual problem. Even CO2 emissions are well below the “do nothing” projections. Instead of being hopeless humanity has a long track record of some basic cost benefit analysis and then mitigating issues.
- goku12 3y ago
  That depends on the profits. The problem is solved only if the cost of fighting regulations (misinformation, lobbying, discrediting, defaming, bribing and sabotage) is less than the profits people make by causing the problem in the first place. There are several examples of this - but none more obvious than the climate catastrophe.
  - Retric 3y ago
    The worlds CO2 PPM would be significantly higher if nobody had done anything to mitigate the issue. America’s per capita CO2 emissions are down 6.6 tons (31%) per person just from 2000. Last year that saved ~2.2 Billion tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere. People look at China’s growing emissions and get concerned, but just imagine if they still got 81% of their electricity from coal instead of already getting ~2.2 TWh of electricity per year from renewables. Battery electric cars already make up 26% of new cars sales in China and those cars are powered by an increasingly green grid. Clearly climate change is still a major issue, but it’s a major issue being actively addressed.
    - goku12 3y ago
      > America’s per capita CO2 emissions are down 6.6 tons per person just from 2000. Last year that saved ~2.2 Billion tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere. People look at China’s growing emissions and get concerned, but just imagine if they still got 81% of their electricity from coal instead of getting ~2.2 TWh of electricity per year from renewables. All those claims ring hollow after all the serious damage to the biosphere that has been done and the rate at which the world is barreling down into a catastrophe. We have still not settled on where the current temperature rise will settle. What's the point of gloating when issue has not been addressed? > The worlds CO2 PPM would be significantly higher if nobody had done anything to mitigate the issue. The excess CO2 PPM would have been significantly lesser if the scientists were taken seriously when it mattered. The first paper on the global greenhouse effect was is 1892 - more than 130 years ago. There was more than enough time to develop and switch to something else. Instead we got everything from misinformation campaigns, political double speaks, sabotaged careers and research - all so that some people could protect their comfortable, but exploitative revenue streams. This goes back to the fundamental problem I was talking about - problems will be solved as long as it doesn't stand in the way of profits. Otherwise, any collateral damage is acceptable to some.
      - Retric 3y ago
        > What's the point of gloating when issue has not been addressed? It is being addressed. A month before net zero the problem won’t be over, but it’s also far from unaddressed. Progress is about rates of change not success. A real argument can be made that we are more than 1/3 of the way to net zero. Back in 1892 nobody was willing to give up heating their homes with coal, but today are homes can remain toasty without the need to burn fossil fuels. Coal is almost dead so it’s mostly oil and natural gas which are being replaced and far less plentiful. If nothing else at current oil consumption proven reserves run out around 2070. Humanity could absolutely fuck the world beyond recognition using coal, oil isn’t as plentiful.
    - palata 3y ago
      > America’s per capita CO2 emissions are down 6.6 tons (31%) per person just from 2000. That's a completely wrong way to look at it. A country can lower its emissions by outsourcing the activities that make them. Do I have to elaborate on what America could have been outsourcing to China since 2000? The per capita C02 emissions, assuming that you don't ignore all of those that happen outside the country, have kept increasing since 2000. > Clearly climate change is still a major issue, but it’s a major issue being actively addressed. I would argue that it is not being actively addressed at all. Hell we don't even agree on whether we need to "accelerate our emissions with the hope that a miracle will happen and give us a technology that saves us" or "slow down and start preparing society for a world with less energy".
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  Well, I do agree with the general point, but smog and DDT did cause drastic harm. Those two killed millions of people.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Drastic harm may mean something different to you, but numbers aren’t subjective. Why do you think DDT killed millions of people?
    - marcosdumay 3y ago
      Take a look at famines due to ecosystems breakdown in the 20th century.
      - clarionbell 3y ago
        Name 3. It should be easy.
        marcosdumay 3y ago
        Name? AFAIK those things didn't have names. The 70s and 80s were filled with huge insect plagues on Asia, Africa and South America that disrupted the agriculture of several countries.
        Retric 3y ago
        > The 70s and 80s were filled with huge insect plagues on Asia, Africa and South America that disrupted the agriculture of several countries. And had nothing to do with DDT. If you’re thinking there was widespread ecological harm from pesticides, we didn’t stop using pesticides people swapped to different pesticides.
        marcosdumay 3y ago
        And yet, they mostly stopped happening since DDT and a few other pesticides stopped being used.

Retric 3y ago

Humanity has actually solved many issues brought up by scientists before they caused drastic harm. A few that come to mind are acid rain, smog, DDT, and CFC’s. Catalytic converters in aggregate costs something like 1/2 a trillion dollars for clean air. We don’t hear about Acid rain because sulfur dioxide emissions are down well over 90% thus dealing with the actual problem. Even CO2 emissions are well below the “do nothing” projections. Instead of being hopeless humanity has a long track record of some basic cost benefit analysis and then mitigating issues.

goku12 3y ago
That depends on the profits. The problem is solved only if the cost of fighting regulations (misinformation, lobbying, discrediting, defaming, bribing and sabotage) is less than the profits people make by causing the problem in the first place. There are several examples of this - but none more obvious than the climate catastrophe.
- Retric 3y ago
  The worlds CO2 PPM would be significantly higher if nobody had done anything to mitigate the issue. America’s per capita CO2 emissions are down 6.6 tons (31%) per person just from 2000. Last year that saved ~2.2 Billion tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere. People look at China’s growing emissions and get concerned, but just imagine if they still got 81% of their electricity from coal instead of already getting ~2.2 TWh of electricity per year from renewables. Battery electric cars already make up 26% of new cars sales in China and those cars are powered by an increasingly green grid. Clearly climate change is still a major issue, but it’s a major issue being actively addressed.
  - goku12 3y ago
    > America’s per capita CO2 emissions are down 6.6 tons per person just from 2000. Last year that saved ~2.2 Billion tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere. People look at China’s growing emissions and get concerned, but just imagine if they still got 81% of their electricity from coal instead of getting ~2.2 TWh of electricity per year from renewables. All those claims ring hollow after all the serious damage to the biosphere that has been done and the rate at which the world is barreling down into a catastrophe. We have still not settled on where the current temperature rise will settle. What's the point of gloating when issue has not been addressed? > The worlds CO2 PPM would be significantly higher if nobody had done anything to mitigate the issue. The excess CO2 PPM would have been significantly lesser if the scientists were taken seriously when it mattered. The first paper on the global greenhouse effect was is 1892 - more than 130 years ago. There was more than enough time to develop and switch to something else. Instead we got everything from misinformation campaigns, political double speaks, sabotaged careers and research - all so that some people could protect their comfortable, but exploitative revenue streams. This goes back to the fundamental problem I was talking about - problems will be solved as long as it doesn't stand in the way of profits. Otherwise, any collateral damage is acceptable to some.
    - Retric 3y ago
      > What's the point of gloating when issue has not been addressed? It is being addressed. A month before net zero the problem won’t be over, but it’s also far from unaddressed. Progress is about rates of change not success. A real argument can be made that we are more than 1/3 of the way to net zero. Back in 1892 nobody was willing to give up heating their homes with coal, but today are homes can remain toasty without the need to burn fossil fuels. Coal is almost dead so it’s mostly oil and natural gas which are being replaced and far less plentiful. If nothing else at current oil consumption proven reserves run out around 2070. Humanity could absolutely fuck the world beyond recognition using coal, oil isn’t as plentiful.
  - palata 3y ago
    > America’s per capita CO2 emissions are down 6.6 tons (31%) per person just from 2000. That's a completely wrong way to look at it. A country can lower its emissions by outsourcing the activities that make them. Do I have to elaborate on what America could have been outsourcing to China since 2000? The per capita C02 emissions, assuming that you don't ignore all of those that happen outside the country, have kept increasing since 2000. > Clearly climate change is still a major issue, but it’s a major issue being actively addressed. I would argue that it is not being actively addressed at all. Hell we don't even agree on whether we need to "accelerate our emissions with the hope that a miracle will happen and give us a technology that saves us" or "slow down and start preparing society for a world with less energy".
marcosdumay 3y ago
Well, I do agree with the general point, but smog and DDT did cause drastic harm. Those two killed millions of people.
- Retric 3y ago
  Drastic harm may mean something different to you, but numbers aren’t subjective. Why do you think DDT killed millions of people?
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    Take a look at famines due to ecosystems breakdown in the 20th century.
    - clarionbell 3y ago
      Name 3. It should be easy.
      - marcosdumay 3y ago
        Name? AFAIK those things didn't have names. The 70s and 80s were filled with huge insect plagues on Asia, Africa and South America that disrupted the agriculture of several countries.
        Retric 3y ago
        > The 70s and 80s were filled with huge insect plagues on Asia, Africa and South America that disrupted the agriculture of several countries. And had nothing to do with DDT. If you’re thinking there was widespread ecological harm from pesticides, we didn’t stop using pesticides people swapped to different pesticides.
        marcosdumay 3y ago
        And yet, they mostly stopped happening since DDT and a few other pesticides stopped being used.