3 ms·

You act as if reacting to global warming is cost-free. It would have a drastic impact on the economy and people's standard of living, especially in the 3rd worl

by gadders 4mo ago

You act as if reacting to global warming is cost-free. It would have a drastic impact on the economy and people's standard of living, especially in the 3rd world.

skeledrew 4mo ago
You act as if NOT reacting to global warming is cost-free. It WILL have a drastic impact on the economy and people's standard of living, especially in the 3rd world. Yes I literally copied your comment, added a single word and modified another; it's that easy to rebut.
- nozzlegear 4mo ago
  It's a bad rebuttal. What can an individual do besides vote? I already drive an electric car, I vote for candidates who promise to fight climate change, and I've been a vegetarian for over 7 years. I'm about maxed out on my negative carbon foot printing, so getting anxious over stories like this seems unproductive at best. I can't be worried about that shit.
  - skeledrew 4mo ago
    What makes it bad? Kudos for at least trying, though I'm not sure driving an electric car helps, unless your power station uses hydro power or another renewable source to provide that electricity. A bigger gain/sacrifice in that regard would be to use public transport, or at least carpool, as often as possible so there's less energy overall being used. And one person didn't cause the situation we have now; many did. And it'll take huge collective action to move the needle in the positive direction.
    - nozzlegear 4mo ago
      > Kudos for at least trying, though I'm not sure driving an electric car helps, unless your power station uses hydro power or another renewable source to provide that electricity. A bigger gain/sacrifice in that regard would be to use public transport, or at least carpool, as often as possible so there's less energy overall being used. I live in rural Iowa where public transport doesn't exist. But the good news is 65% of the state's electricity comes from wind energy, and my own municipal utility has a tiny solar farm too. > And one person didn't cause the situation we have now; many did. And it'll take huge collective action to move the needle in the positive direction. Others are chastising OP for not being concerned about every piece of breathless, anxiety-inducing climate change news, but an individual can't do anything to change it except make a couple of tiny changes and then stop worrying. Edit: I don't mean to be combative, I largely agree with your overall point. I shouldn't have said your rebuttal was bad, I was up too late last night when I left that comment.
- gadders 4mo ago
  Well, it's not really a rebuttal, is it? When choosing a path to take we need to be clear on both the climate benefits and the economic disbenefits (or vica versa).
  - skeledrew 4mo ago
    Exactly the kind of thinking that's gotten us to this point. What happens when that which benefits the climate continually "disbenefits" the economy, or vv?
    - gadders 4mo ago
      Then we should let the electorate make a fully informed decision about whether they want to definitely reduce their standard of living for some estimated/modelled future climate issue (none of which have come true to date), bearing in mind that it makes no sense for EG the UK to do it if China or Russia don't as we are just rounding errors on their polution.
      - skeledrew 4mo ago
        > estimated/modelled future Would you also like to take a highway stroll[0]? > China or Russia Why look toward them to make a first move? What do you think happens when everyone keeps looking at everyone else to make the first move? Pretty sure there was/is a rush to be first to accessible fossil fuel deposits, and first to build infrastructure exploiting those deposits. How about making that move first to fix things because it's the right thing to do, and set an example that others can then actually follow? Or is it better to just keep watching and exploiting and let it all burn and flood, because that's a "future concern"? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48528356 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48528356

by gadders 4mo ago

You act as if reacting to global warming is cost-free. It would have a drastic impact on the economy and people's standard of living, especially in the 3rd world.

skeledrew 4mo ago

You act as if NOT reacting to global warming is cost-free. It WILL have a drastic impact on the economy and people's standard of living, especially in the 3rd world. Yes I literally copied your comment, added a single word and modified another; it's that easy to rebut.

nozzlegear 4mo ago
It's a bad rebuttal. What can an individual do besides vote? I already drive an electric car, I vote for candidates who promise to fight climate change, and I've been a vegetarian for over 7 years. I'm about maxed out on my negative carbon foot printing, so getting anxious over stories like this seems unproductive at best. I can't be worried about that shit.
- skeledrew 4mo ago
  What makes it bad? Kudos for at least trying, though I'm not sure driving an electric car helps, unless your power station uses hydro power or another renewable source to provide that electricity. A bigger gain/sacrifice in that regard would be to use public transport, or at least carpool, as often as possible so there's less energy overall being used. And one person didn't cause the situation we have now; many did. And it'll take huge collective action to move the needle in the positive direction.
  - nozzlegear 4mo ago
    > Kudos for at least trying, though I'm not sure driving an electric car helps, unless your power station uses hydro power or another renewable source to provide that electricity. A bigger gain/sacrifice in that regard would be to use public transport, or at least carpool, as often as possible so there's less energy overall being used. I live in rural Iowa where public transport doesn't exist. But the good news is 65% of the state's electricity comes from wind energy, and my own municipal utility has a tiny solar farm too. > And one person didn't cause the situation we have now; many did. And it'll take huge collective action to move the needle in the positive direction. Others are chastising OP for not being concerned about every piece of breathless, anxiety-inducing climate change news, but an individual can't do anything to change it except make a couple of tiny changes and then stop worrying. Edit: I don't mean to be combative, I largely agree with your overall point. I shouldn't have said your rebuttal was bad, I was up too late last night when I left that comment.
gadders 4mo ago
Well, it's not really a rebuttal, is it? When choosing a path to take we need to be clear on both the climate benefits and the economic disbenefits (or vica versa).
- skeledrew 4mo ago
  Exactly the kind of thinking that's gotten us to this point. What happens when that which benefits the climate continually "disbenefits" the economy, or vv?
  - gadders 4mo ago
    Then we should let the electorate make a fully informed decision about whether they want to definitely reduce their standard of living for some estimated/modelled future climate issue (none of which have come true to date), bearing in mind that it makes no sense for EG the UK to do it if China or Russia don't as we are just rounding errors on their polution.
    - skeledrew 4mo ago
      > estimated/modelled future Would you also like to take a highway stroll[0]? > China or Russia Why look toward them to make a first move? What do you think happens when everyone keeps looking at everyone else to make the first move? Pretty sure there was/is a rush to be first to accessible fossil fuel deposits, and first to build infrastructure exploiting those deposits. How about making that move first to fix things because it's the right thing to do, and set an example that others can then actually follow? Or is it better to just keep watching and exploiting and let it all burn and flood, because that's a "future concern"? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48528356 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48528356