5 ms·
What's more likely? That we'll convince people to cut their energy consumption in half, or convince people to purchase higher efficiency equipment and slowly mo
by marknutter 13y ago
What's more likely? That we'll convince people to cut their energy consumption in half, or convince people to purchase higher efficiency equipment and slowly move over to cleaner forms of energy as they become available? What's needed in the climate debate is a healthy dose of pragmatism.
- mikeash 13y agoWhat do you do when "pragmatism" doesn't produce the results you need? Maybe convincing people to cut their energy consumption in half isn't in the cards. At the same time, maybe that is what is needed. The universe doesn't have to cooperate to give us pragmatic solutions. If the "impossible" solution is required, and the "pragmatic" solution isn't sufficient... why should climate scientists advocate for the latter over the former?
- marknutter 13y agoWhy wouldn't pragmatism produce the results needed? Moving over to Nuclear Power would, without a doubt, solve the climate crisis. Granted, it would introduce other challenges, but we're talking about the lesser of two evils here.
- mikeash 13y agoI don't think a rapid wholesale move to nuclear power is any more pragmatic than a rapid move to cut average per capita energy consumption in half.
- marknutter 13y agoOne solution requires the economy to stall, the other does not. Take your best guess as to which one will have better public support.
- mikeash 13y agoIs there a point to ranking impractical solutions?
- marknutter 13y agoImpractical, yet exactly what France did..
- mikeash 13y agoIn a different age, when public opinion on nuclear energy was substantially different.
- comrade_ogilvy 13y agoWell, for one thing, the "impossible" comes with large error bars and thus is difficult to trust, even those trained in the sciences (or, perhaps, ESPECIALLY for those trained in the sciences). At least the pragmatic buys time, if nothing else.