4 ms·

I wish people would just come out and say, "Humans can change the climate. The question is how we deal with that from a economic standpoint." I understand that

I wish people would just come out and say, "Humans can change the climate. The question is how we deal with that from a economic standpoint." I understand that argument and would like to have the debate about the trade-offs. But flatly denying isn't helping us move forward.

Shivetya 12y ago
Oh I am sure we could change the climate, China does with artificial rain. However I am not convinced about the dire predictions or short of a collective effort to affect the climate that we have a large effect by default. We cannot accurately model changes in the climate yet there is no shortage of people who want to scream bloody murder we are all going to die. Trouble is, far too many of them come off as traveling religious leaders, just missing a tent.
- lumberjack 12y ago
  >China does with artificial rain That's weather not climate.
iopq 12y ago
Oh, I totally agree with that. But try telling that to your average Green Peace liberal who just wants to abandon technology because it's "killing our planet" or some such. Nuclear plants on average pollute less than coal? Nope, gotta get rid of both, YESTERDAY. It's this kind of all-or-nothing debate that makes people not want to give in.
- coldtea 12y ago
  >Oh, I totally agree with that. But try telling that to your average Green Peace liberal who just wants to abandon technology because it's "killing our planet" or some such. Abandoning something (e.g. some technologies) because it's "killing our planet"? What a crazy idea! No, we gotta have more of it, forever increasing, and it will sort out the problems it creates itself. Why ever be content with anything we have? After all the meaning of life is having more and more of everything.
- mercurial 12y ago
  > But try telling that to your average Green Peace liberal who just wants to abandon technology because it's "killing our planet" or some such. Why do you feel so concerned about Greenpeace when they don't make the laws anywhere (not that I think you're representing their position accurately anyway)? They're not the lobbying heavyweight that fossil fuel industries are.
  - iopq 12y ago
    I don't have a problem with Greenpeace, I just have a problem with how it's all or nothing to their members. We can't have nuclear because nuclear pollutes our planet! Forget that overall it might reduce emissions compared to the current electrical power sources...
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  Kill the nuclear liability cap and start taxing carbon at a rate commensurate with the damage it actually does and we wouldn't have to debate about which form of energy generation was superior. It wouldn't make financial sense to build anything other than solar, hydro or wind farms. Clean energy via free markets. Imagine.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
mercurial 12y ago
Apparently, people come out and say this instead: "Climate is changing, and climate has always changed, and always will, there's archeological evidence of that, there's biblical evidence of that, there's historic evidence of that, it will always change," [GOP Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma] said on the Senate floor. "The hoax is that there are some people that are so arrogant to think that they are so powerful that they can change climate. Man can't change climate." "Biblical evidence", indeed.
mercurial 12y ago
> I understand that argument and would like to have the debate about the trade-offs. But flatly denying isn't helping us move forward. You are right in saying that it is at its heart an economic question. Unfortunately, an economic model based on ever-increasing consumption of physical goods, combined with a large population with increased access to emission-creating technologies doesn't seem compatible with our mid-term survival (not to mention the rate at which non-renewable resources are consumed). But sticking your head the sand is much easier than come out and say that hard choices are coming.

Shivetya 12y ago

Oh I am sure we could change the climate, China does with artificial rain. However I am not convinced about the dire predictions or short of a collective effort to affect the climate that we have a large effect by default. We cannot accurately model changes in the climate yet there is no shortage of people who want to scream bloody murder we are all going to die. Trouble is, far too many of them come off as traveling religious leaders, just missing a tent.

lumberjack 12y ago
>China does with artificial rain That's weather not climate.

iopq 12y ago

Oh, I totally agree with that. But try telling that to your average Green Peace liberal who just wants to abandon technology because it's "killing our planet" or some such. Nuclear plants on average pollute less than coal? Nope, gotta get rid of both, YESTERDAY. It's this kind of all-or-nothing debate that makes people not want to give in.

coldtea 12y ago
>Oh, I totally agree with that. But try telling that to your average Green Peace liberal who just wants to abandon technology because it's "killing our planet" or some such. Abandoning something (e.g. some technologies) because it's "killing our planet"? What a crazy idea! No, we gotta have more of it, forever increasing, and it will sort out the problems it creates itself. Why ever be content with anything we have? After all the meaning of life is having more and more of everything.
mercurial 12y ago
> But try telling that to your average Green Peace liberal who just wants to abandon technology because it's "killing our planet" or some such. Why do you feel so concerned about Greenpeace when they don't make the laws anywhere (not that I think you're representing their position accurately anyway)? They're not the lobbying heavyweight that fossil fuel industries are.
- iopq 12y ago
  I don't have a problem with Greenpeace, I just have a problem with how it's all or nothing to their members. We can't have nuclear because nuclear pollutes our planet! Forget that overall it might reduce emissions compared to the current electrical power sources...
crdoconnor 12y ago
Kill the nuclear liability cap and start taxing carbon at a rate commensurate with the damage it actually does and we wouldn't have to debate about which form of energy generation was superior. It wouldn't make financial sense to build anything other than solar, hydro or wind farms. Clean energy via free markets. Imagine.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

mercurial 12y ago

Apparently, people come out and say this instead: "Climate is changing, and climate has always changed, and always will, there's archeological evidence of that, there's biblical evidence of that, there's historic evidence of that, it will always change," [GOP Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma] said on the Senate floor. "The hoax is that there are some people that are so arrogant to think that they are so powerful that they can change climate. Man can't change climate." "Biblical evidence", indeed.

mercurial 12y ago

> I understand that argument and would like to have the debate about the trade-offs. But flatly denying isn't helping us move forward. You are right in saying that it is at its heart an economic question. Unfortunately, an economic model based on ever-increasing consumption of physical goods, combined with a large population with increased access to emission-creating technologies doesn't seem compatible with our mid-term survival (not to mention the rate at which non-renewable resources are consumed). But sticking your head the sand is much easier than come out and say that hard choices are coming.