8 ms·

There is no chance this will be solved by convincing people to stop using fossil fuels. If you somehow were able to convince the Western countries, you're not g

by mhb 1y ago

There is no chance this will be solved by convincing people to stop using fossil fuels. If you somehow were able to convince the Western countries, you're not going to convince China and the rest of world. The options are nuclear for baseline with solar and wind supplementing it. Or geoengineering. The cost will be astronomical and voters will not be happy to pay for it. Also, bizarrely, countries with nuclear have actually been turning off their nuclear. Given the incentives that exist, it would probably be a good idea to think seriously about the geoengineering options.

sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
Yeah, all of those things need to happen. And they all require massive investment. They also have a better chance of success if we significantly reduce fossil fuel usage in the meantime and extend the runway a bit. The debate matters because we don't have consensus as a society that climate change is occurring. The scientific consensus has been consistently and aggressively countered in the public sphere. The interests that have pushed the counter narrative do not push for action regardless of cause. They push for inaction, because action costs them money. If there was a societal consensus that global warming is a massive problem and we were pouring tons of cash into geoengineering, I'd be on board with your position. But we're not, we're still arguing about whether it's happening at all or whether it's enough to really be a problem or whether it's worth doing anything at all. The debate matters, and causality matters for establishing the facts in the debate.
- mhb 1y ago
  I don't really have a position other than it doesn't matter if everyone believes that global warming is occurring and that it was caused by our activities. Even if everyone thought that, I don't think they would be willing to take any kind of hit to their lifestyles to address it. Are the people driving around in ridiculous giant SUVs and trucks and turning off the nuclear plants all not convinced that global warming is happening? I'm guessing they just think it will all work out somehow in the future. But I hope you're right.

by mhb 1y ago

sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago

Yeah, all of those things need to happen. And they all require massive investment. They also have a better chance of success if we significantly reduce fossil fuel usage in the meantime and extend the runway a bit. The debate matters because we don't have consensus as a society that climate change is occurring. The scientific consensus has been consistently and aggressively countered in the public sphere. The interests that have pushed the counter narrative do not push for action regardless of cause. They push for inaction, because action costs them money. If there was a societal consensus that global warming is a massive problem and we were pouring tons of cash into geoengineering, I'd be on board with your position. But we're not, we're still arguing about whether it's happening at all or whether it's enough to really be a problem or whether it's worth doing anything at all. The debate matters, and causality matters for establishing the facts in the debate.

mhb 1y ago
I don't really have a position other than it doesn't matter if everyone believes that global warming is occurring and that it was caused by our activities. Even if everyone thought that, I don't think they would be willing to take any kind of hit to their lifestyles to address it. Are the people driving around in ridiculous giant SUVs and trucks and turning off the nuclear plants all not convinced that global warming is happening? I'm guessing they just think it will all work out somehow in the future. But I hope you're right.