71–80 of 146 posts
People's financial incentives are not aligned with the climate's necessary modifications. The two won't be aligned until climate passes over its tipping point and enters an irreversible feedback loop.
Good. Something smarter than humans might come along next.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much war are you willing to wage to force other countries to do the same? I think that's really the only question that matters when it comes to the "everybody pass laws" plan.
This is an ineffective approach. No country can assume any other will fall in line to "do the same". This creates a do nothing approach because it turns doing the right thing, by taking the first steps, into a game of finger pointing. War is definitely not the answer and is 100% counterproductive to the end goal. If all countries, that are supposedly interested in being the best climate change affectors, all competed…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you ask me for data when you can look that up for yourself? I speak from experience.
>I was growing up here in the 90s; we had solid -30 Celsius winters for several months. Where? In your imagination? https://weatherspark.com/h/y/148642/1990/Historical-Weather-... https://weatherspark.com/h/y/148509/1990/Historical-Weather-... https://weatherspark.com/h/y/148455/1990/Historical-Weather-... https://weatherspark.com/h/y/148594/1990/Historical-Weather-...
It’s likely to kill everyone of us. From the rich to the poor, strong to the weak, through famine, war and drought. Natural disaster after natural disaster. Horror after horror. Tragedy after tragedy. Yet we’re all in state of paralysis, watching our impending doom draw closer and fates unfold. Entrusting those who will do nothing about it. Half of us are still in denial. I really wonder if we possess the survival in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or laws/taxes are passed, which incorporate the externalities, and subventions for detrimental efforts are cut. That is "just" a matter of political will.
How much war are you willing to wage to force other countries to do the same? I think that's really the only question that matters when it comes to the "everybody pass laws" plan.
You could take that further too, say a 10% tariff on products coming from countries that buy beef from other countries who are cutting down the rainforest. I realise it would quickly become legislatively complicated, but isn't this the kind of hard problem we elect representatives for?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who's not up to date on all the climate research. Are most the scientists in agreement that climate change is a result of our actions? And do they all agree on how dangerous changes to our climate are?
The IPCC summary is available to read: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-spm-... > very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2 > Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogeni…
The only way to get out of this situation is a green dictatorship. It's the least painful solution. Democracy and freedom are great things, but consumerism abused them, and it's leading everyone to their own destruction. I'm tired to end discussions with "but you cannot confiscate things from people, it's against basic human rights". Ignorance and failure to listen to reason are very dangerous. I want to hope people…
It would also likely inspire an awful lot of anti intellectualism and anti 'ivory tower' resentment, which could have terrible consequences for the future.
Basically, any attempt would go about as well as someone walking into the middle east and trying to set up a secular dictatorship in the style of the USSR.
Of course, a cynic may say that's the only way to deal with climate change and they may be right. It's just that trying to fix things via force would probably go even more poorly than trying to persuade people to live less comfortably would.
Unfortunately, the most likely fixes right now are probably:
A: Some sort of miraculous new technology is invented that can cheaply do carbon capture and provide enough clean energy that fossil fuels are made completely obsolete.
B: Somehow, a huge push is made for mastering space travel, and people are incentivised to leave Earth. A sentient species with an advanced civilisation may simply be incompatible with other life on a planet.
C: Society gets wrecked enough that humanity somehow ends back in a pre industrial revolution state, perhaps due to the side effects of climate change.
D: Humanity simply decides they can't fix Earth, doesn't try and edits themselves/civilisation to deal with rampant temperature increases/disasters/whatever.
It’s likely to kill everyone of us. From the rich to the poor, strong to the weak, through famine, war and drought. Natural disaster after natural disaster. Horror after horror. Tragedy after tragedy. Yet we’re all in state of paralysis, watching our impending doom draw closer and fates unfold. Entrusting those who will do nothing about it. Half of us are still in denial. I really wonder if we possess the survival in…
One half is in denial about climate change itself, and the other half is in denial about the solution to the problem. Almost everyone is guilty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because laissez-faire economics doesn't converge automagically on the best path. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/12/how-the...
Correct. I'd add that I don't think anyone worth listening to has ever really thought this to be true: rather, it is convenient for those with the majority of private capital for everyone to believe it is true so that they don't have to account for how they spend their money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much war are you willing to wage to force other countries to do the same? I think that's really the only question that matters when it comes to the "everybody pass laws" plan.
With just a few big markets making the changes the rest of the world could be steered in the correct direction surely? If the US/EU etc. required that products coming in from China (or other countries where we offload our carbon use to) were created with less than X carbon released (differing per product) and with independent verification then they'd make the changes I'd imagine. Prices would go up of course which is…