This looks like sugar-coating the effects of climate change. It is still a 'may' and likely will never materialize.
Isn't that the same with every prediction of climate change?
Melting glaciers may produce thousands of kilometers of new salmon habitat
51–60 of 68 posts
Re: Melting glaciers may produce thousands of kilometers of new salmon habitat
#52I think when trying to predict the future of climate change, you’ll find every model imperfect (even if it can tell you important truths about what may happen). If you try to make specific predictions, you’re going to turn people off. It’s far better to frame it as a matter of, “Look we don’t know what’ll happen and since we only have 1 planet and pollution is bad, we’re going to try and minimize the impact we have,…
> ... and since we only have 1 planet and pollution is bad ... There is a high correlation and probably causal relationship between increasing global pollution and improved living standards. It is extremely unclear that "pollution is bad". Someone taking a strictly data driven approach could reasonably conclude that pollution is good. There is a reason that the pro-environment types are struggling to have an impact o…
While I agree there seems to be a positive correlation, the argument reminds me of this classic video from the Onion:
[0] https://youtu.be/nJ4K0hHin9s "China Celebrates Status as Number One Polluter"
"The labor of the people has made the sky black with the smoke of progress... We are overjoyed."
"Cancer is a very modern disease"
"If pollution ruins a river, we will build a new river"
Re: Melting glaciers may produce thousands of kilometers of new salmon habitat
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ... and since we only have 1 planet and pollution is bad ... There is a high correlation and probably causal relationship between increasing global pollution and improved living standards. It is extremely unclear that "pollution is bad". Someone taking a strictly data driven approach could reasonably conclude that pollution is good. There is a reason that the pro-environment types are struggling to have an impact o…
This is why compartmentalizing things as "good" or "bad" is unhelpful. It's rarely so simple. Sure, there are aspects of polluting behaviours that ostensibly raise the quality of life for many people, but that doesn't mean you should ignore the long term impact of that behavior, especially if it has a provably negative impact on the planet. You have to look at the whole issue, not just the short term positives.
> provably negative impact on the planet.
There is nothing negative happening to the planet. We couldn't hurt it if we tried. "Human life supporting environment" is what's at stake.
Re: Melting glaciers may produce thousands of kilometers of new salmon habitat
#54I think when trying to predict the future of climate change, you’ll find every model imperfect (even if it can tell you important truths about what may happen). If you try to make specific predictions, you’re going to turn people off. It’s far better to frame it as a matter of, “Look we don’t know what’ll happen and since we only have 1 planet and pollution is bad, we’re going to try and minimize the impact we have,…
> ... and since we only have 1 planet and pollution is bad ... There is a high correlation and probably causal relationship between increasing global pollution and improved living standards. It is extremely unclear that "pollution is bad". Someone taking a strictly data driven approach could reasonably conclude that pollution is good. There is a reason that the pro-environment types are struggling to have an impact o…
> There is a high correlation and probably causal relationship between increasing global pollution and improved living standards.
That would be if pollution was a global phenomenon. Climate is global and chaotic, and we only have one planet so we can't compare, but pollution levels are local are different between heavily industrialised places and times and less so places and times. I'm sure there is extensive and conclusive research that pollution is bad for your health, which is an important part of living standards.
Re: Melting glaciers may produce thousands of kilometers of new salmon habitat
#55I think when trying to predict the future of climate change, you’ll find every model imperfect (even if it can tell you important truths about what may happen). If you try to make specific predictions, you’re going to turn people off. It’s far better to frame it as a matter of, “Look we don’t know what’ll happen and since we only have 1 planet and pollution is bad, we’re going to try and minimize the impact we have,…
> ... and since we only have 1 planet and pollution is bad ... There is a high correlation and probably causal relationship between increasing global pollution and improved living standards. It is extremely unclear that "pollution is bad". Someone taking a strictly data driven approach could reasonably conclude that pollution is good. There is a reason that the pro-environment types are struggling to have an impact o…
There are two kind of things that are often lumped together:
Visible local pollution: This includes things like particulate matter in air, river pollution, dirty streets, toxic water etc. This is clearly inversely correlated with development and health and developed countries generally sorted it out better.
Global level: This mostly includes greenhouse gases etc. This is very correlated with development and health among countries. The countries with highest emission has best quality of life and they are sharing the burden with undeveloped countries.
Re: Melting glaciers may produce thousands of kilometers of new salmon habitat
#56This looks like sugar-coating the effects of climate change. It is still a 'may' and likely will never materialize.
You mean those glaciers might not actually melt? Do you not believe in climate change?
Re: Melting glaciers may produce thousands of kilometers of new salmon habitat
#57Now that massive climate change is basically inevitable, I'd invest in a fund that specialized in finding opportunities (like this). Does anyone know if one?
Invest for the sake of return or a different meaning of invest?
Re: Melting glaciers may produce thousands of kilometers of new salmon habitat
#58This looks like sugar-coating the effects of climate change. It is still a 'may' and likely will never materialize.
I think you're getting voted down for confusing wording but you're right. This article says "well, we accept that we're not gonna do anything about climate change, but here's why actually that might not be so bad!"
Re: Melting glaciers may produce thousands of kilometers of new salmon habitat
#59Re: Melting glaciers may produce thousands of kilometers of new salmon habitat
#60I think when trying to predict the future of climate change, you’ll find every model imperfect (even if it can tell you important truths about what may happen). If you try to make specific predictions, you’re going to turn people off. It’s far better to frame it as a matter of, “Look we don’t know what’ll happen and since we only have 1 planet and pollution is bad, we’re going to try and minimize the impact we have,…
> ... and since we only have 1 planet and pollution is bad ... There is a high correlation and probably causal relationship between increasing global pollution and improved living standards. It is extremely unclear that "pollution is bad". Someone taking a strictly data driven approach could reasonably conclude that pollution is good. There is a reason that the pro-environment types are struggling to have an impact o…
Environmentalist solutions that would lower carbon would have no negative impact on our standards of living, and would in fact raise it.
For example we know from studies that long car commutes are terrible for your health and even dramatically rise divorce rates. With that in mind, jurisdictions with good public rapid transportation networks have higher quality of life than SF, and at the same time have less CO2 emissions due to the more efficient transportation system.
The reason for friction against environmentalism is because the low carbon solutions have been politicized into being part of the left/right culture war.
The result is inexplicable push back against dull public works that benefit everyone on top of also lowering CO2.