3 ms·

If this is a good faith argument, it doesn’t feel like one, then it’s predicated on the idea that if the majority of the world used the same resources as the we

If this is a good faith argument, it doesn’t feel like one, then it’s predicated on the idea that if the majority of the world used the same resources as the wealthy then we’re done. It also ignores that the wealthy have the resources to address their living standards being ecologically sound and therefore those improving their lives will have access to clean solutions. Or you can blame liberals blaming the poor.

infamouscow 3y ago
> If this is a good faith argument, it doesn’t feel like one The argument is based on evidence and reason, not emotions. > then it’s predicated on ... This isn't a hypothetical scenario -- these people overwhelmingly use fossil fuels rather than green energy. > It also ignores that the wealthy have the resources ... Nobody knows whether an astroid, nuclear war, or a super volcano eruption poses as much, if not more of an existential risk than climate change. And given multiple existential risks to the Earth with finite resources, we cannot fall to silly appeals to emotion when allocating these resources. If climate change activists were honest, they would be arguing for why climate change is more of an existential risk than the other existential risks to the planet. Instead, they prognosticate the end of the world rely entirely on sophistry to get their message across.
- Nevermark 3y ago
  We have much more control and certainty over the disaster we are in the process of creating than an extremely unlikely asteroid incident, over the same time frame. We can 100% ensure a climate disaster, or nearly 100% mitigate the worst case. The cost benefit analysis is clear. It costs less to mitigate climate change, and there are huge political and economic gains from removing our dependence on oil, rather than suffer unmitigated climate change. The hard part is coordination. We have the resources and economic incentives as a whole to take the best path. But our political and economic systems are not as sophisticated, in terms of translating the benefits of change to individual actors, as the problem requires. Externalized damage is profitable to powerful corporations, and even customers, in the short run. But we need political systems to more reliably set limits, AND provide the incentives, that would result in CFO’s at the most relevant corporations welcoming the change too. To a first approximation, the transition from fossil fuels by fossil fuel companies will be set by those companies’ CFOs. Make it less profitable to stay with fossil fuels, and make it so profitable for energy companies to supply other forms of energy, that those CFO’s get on board and things will change very fast. Share the economic value of a change with the most important players, as apposed to fighting them, and it will happen. Pragmatism wins.

infamouscow 3y ago

> If this is a good faith argument, it doesn’t feel like one The argument is based on evidence and reason, not emotions. > then it’s predicated on ... This isn't a hypothetical scenario -- these people overwhelmingly use fossil fuels rather than green energy. > It also ignores that the wealthy have the resources ... Nobody knows whether an astroid, nuclear war, or a super volcano eruption poses as much, if not more of an existential risk than climate change. And given multiple existential risks to the Earth with finite resources, we cannot fall to silly appeals to emotion when allocating these resources. If climate change activists were honest, they would be arguing for why climate change is more of an existential risk than the other existential risks to the planet. Instead, they prognosticate the end of the world rely entirely on sophistry to get their message across.

Nevermark 3y ago
We have much more control and certainty over the disaster we are in the process of creating than an extremely unlikely asteroid incident, over the same time frame. We can 100% ensure a climate disaster, or nearly 100% mitigate the worst case. The cost benefit analysis is clear. It costs less to mitigate climate change, and there are huge political and economic gains from removing our dependence on oil, rather than suffer unmitigated climate change. The hard part is coordination. We have the resources and economic incentives as a whole to take the best path. But our political and economic systems are not as sophisticated, in terms of translating the benefits of change to individual actors, as the problem requires. Externalized damage is profitable to powerful corporations, and even customers, in the short run. But we need political systems to more reliably set limits, AND provide the incentives, that would result in CFO’s at the most relevant corporations welcoming the change too. To a first approximation, the transition from fossil fuels by fossil fuel companies will be set by those companies’ CFOs. Make it less profitable to stay with fossil fuels, and make it so profitable for energy companies to supply other forms of energy, that those CFO’s get on board and things will change very fast. Share the economic value of a change with the most important players, as apposed to fighting them, and it will happen. Pragmatism wins.