Climate cowardice

[flash2015]

Even worse how? This is an emergency.

You don't think extreme poverty and starvation (especially in developing nations) caused by the removal of fossil fuels would be a big deal?

You don't solve an emergency by creating a different one.

Failing to tackle the climate crisis will render large parts of the world uninhabitable and will cause extreme poverty, starvation, and death for more people than you seem willing to realise.

Again it is a cost benefit. We have to weigh the costs of not intervening vs. the costs of intervention. I am 100% not ignoring that there will be massive costs to climate change...but I also recognize the massive costs of making dramatic changes to our carbon usage when the tech and infrastructure isn't there to replace the fossil fuels. You seem to be only seeing one side of the equation.

If the models are right, unfortunately a lot of this climate change is already baked in. We aren't going to be able to change it a lot, especially in the near term. We will just need to deal with it. This is just reality.

[Jamiet99uk]

You don't think extreme poverty and starvation (especially in developing nations) caused by the removal of fossil fuels would be a big deal?

You don't solve an emergency by creating a different one.

Failing to tackle the climate crisis will render large parts of the world uninhabitable and will cause extreme poverty, starvation, and death for more people than you seem willing to realise.

Again it is a cost benefit. We have to weigh the costs of not intervening vs. the costs of intervention. I am 100% not ignoring that there will be massive costs to climate change...but I also recognize the massive costs of making dramatic changes to our carbon usage when the tech and infrastructure isn't there to replace the fossil fuels. You seem to be only seeing one side of the equation.

If the models are right, unfortunately a lot of this climate change is already baked in. We aren't going to be able to change it a lot, especially in the near term. We will just need to deal with it. This is just reality.

You are proposing that we shouldn't deal with it.

(Which, by the way, is absolutely fucking insane and if your approach is followed, millions of people will die).

[Jamiet99uk]

I like the way that this debate presents me as the extremist because I would like to *prevent* millions of deaths.

[flash2015]

I like the way that this debate presents me as the extremist because I would like to *prevent* millions of deaths.

You are the extremist here by not recognizing the costs of what you are proposing. You propose killing millions of people (by prematurely trying to stop the use of fossil fuels before we have alternatives) to save millions of people at some later point.

I never even remotely said that we should do nothing.

[Octavious]

Perspective is vital and very easily lost in such debates. We have, in the last couple of years, ensured the deaths of hundreds of thousands, the displacement of millions, and risked the deaths of literally billions over a matter of principle regarding a non-aligned and deeply corrupt eastern European nation. This has been considerably more alarming than climate change.

What also concerns me more than the fight to mitigate climate change are the increasing millions of people who have been misled by elements of the media and extremist campaign groups into believing that the world will end unless immediate and radical action is taken. As with many unfounded religious beliefs, this has the singularly evil trait of leading fundamentally decent people to the conclusion that they must carry out actions they would normally find repugnant for the greater good. They are becoming as dangerous as those nutjob Qanon types who believe the globe is led by a cabal of paedophiles, and that any action is justified to remove them.

[flash2015]

It isn't only the belief that the world will end unless immediate and radical action is taken. It is also the belief that the only reason we are being held back from taking these actions is because of an evil cabal of vested interests in the status quo.

This group of evil greedy multi-millionaires/billionaires only cares about the short term profits from fossil fuels and don't care about the planet at all. Also the cost of these immediate and radical actions will exclusively fall on these multi-millionaires/billionaires which is why they oppose them so strongly.

This is of course all complete and utter nonsense.

[Jamiet99uk]

I like the way that this debate presents me as the extremist because I would like to *prevent* millions of deaths.

You are the extremist here by not recognizing the costs of what you are proposing. You propose killing millions of people (by prematurely trying to stop the use of fossil fuels before we have alternatives) to save millions of people at some later point.

I never even remotely said that we should do nothing.

Sorry, then please would you clarify:

What immediate actions are you proposing?

[Jamiet99uk]

It isn't only the belief that the world will end unless immediate and radical action is taken. It is also the belief that the only reason we are being held back from taking these actions is because of an evil cabal of vested interests in the status quo.

This group of evil greedy multi-millionaires/billionaires only cares about the short term profits from fossil fuels and don't care about the planet at all. Also the cost of these immediate and radical actions will exclusively fall on these multi-millionaires/billionaires which is why they oppose them so strongly.

This is of course all complete and utter nonsense.

Do you agree that the climate crisis is a legitimate, actual crisis? An emergency? Because your posts in this thread imply otherwise.

[Octavious]

If you look at recent historic events commonly described as a crisis, such as the Covid pandemic, the 2008 financial crisis, the Syrian civil war, the Haiti earthquake, the Indian Ocean tsunami, then it wouldn't be out of place to consider climate change an issue of comparable magnitude. It is quite legitimate, therefore, to call it a crisis.

This is not the same as declaring the end of the world is upon us, nor does it mean climate change must be our absolute priority at the expense of all other issues. Ultimately what comes first is human quality of life. You could solve climate change tomorrow if you didn't care about human quality of life, but thankfully we do.

[flash2015]

Sorry, then please would you clarify:

What immediate actions are you proposing?

I have been a fan of a slowly increasing carbon tax for years with revenue given back through tax cuts/subsidies for the lowest income earners. This provides the right incentives to get people off fossil fuels and is technology agnostic. It also is very transparent in the cost of our climate mitigation strategies.

Unfortunately the simplest, best solution is unpopular (the Australian government that tried this got terfed out). Now we have this complicated mess of subsidies, mandates and blocks on fossil fuel development which are not transparent and are hiding the real costs and are leading to far less efficient outcomes.

If we honestly really believe this is an emergency that must be solved immediately the right option would be to go "all in" on nuclear power everywhere. Bypass the NIMBYs, bypass the multi-year environmental assessment nonsense. Jail the idiot protestors who try to stop it. Get it built everywhere NOW! Unfortunately most people that claim there is a "climate emergency" are anti-nuclear too. That the climate emergency alarmists aren't pushing nuclear makes it hard to take them seriously.

[orathaic]

We are not currently in an "ice age".

Are you talking as a scientist would understand the term or as a lay person would?

Because those are not the same things.

[orathaic]

Here is wikipedia for your information:

"An ice age is a long period of reduction in the temperature of Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Earth's climate alternates between ice ages and greenhouse periods, during which there are no glaciers on the planet. Earth is currently in the ice age called Quaternary glaciation."

The current warm period is

"Individual pulses of cold climate within an ice age are termed glacial periods (or, alternatively, glacials, glaciations, glacial stages, stadials, stades, or colloquially, ice ages), and intermittent warm periods within an ice age are called interglacials or interstadials."

[Jamiet99uk]

If you look at recent historic events commonly described as a crisis, such as the Covid pandemic, the 2008 financial crisis, the Syrian civil war, the Haiti earthquake, the Indian Ocean tsunami, then it wouldn't be out of place to consider climate change an issue of comparable magnitude. It is quite legitimate, therefore, to call it a crisis.

This is not the same as declaring the end of the world is upon us, nor does it mean climate change must be our absolute priority at the expense of all other issues. Ultimately what comes first is human quality of life. You could solve climate change tomorrow if you didn't care about human quality of life, but thankfully we do.

What about the quality of life of coming generations of humans, who will suffer enormously when they are born into a less-hospitable world due to the fecklessness and selfishness of recent generations?

[Jamiet99uk]

Sorry, then please would you clarify:

What immediate actions are you proposing?

I have been a fan of a slowly increasing carbon tax for years with revenue given back through tax cuts/subsidies for the lowest income earners. This provides the right incentives to get people off fossil fuels and is technology agnostic. It also is very transparent in the cost of our climate mitigation strategies.

Unfortunately the simplest, best solution is unpopular (the Australian government that tried this got terfed out). Now we have this complicated mess of subsidies, mandates and blocks on fossil fuel development which are not transparent and are hiding the real costs and are leading to far less efficient outcomes.

If we honestly really believe this is an emergency that must be solved immediately the right option would be to go "all in" on nuclear power everywhere. Bypass the NIMBYs, bypass the multi-year environmental assessment nonsense. Jail the idiot protestors who try to stop it. Get it built everywhere NOW! Unfortunately most people that claim there is a "climate emergency" are anti-nuclear too. That the climate emergency alarmists aren't pushing nuclear makes it hard to take them seriously.

I am in favour of a transitional role for nuclear power, for the record.

[orathaic]

What about the quality of life of coming generations of humans, who will suffer enormously when they are born into a less-hospitable world due to the fecklessness and selfishness of recent generations?

Can i just second this.

[flash2015]

If you look at recent historic events commonly described as a crisis, such as the Covid pandemic, the 2008 financial crisis, the Syrian civil war, the Haiti earthquake, the Indian Ocean tsunami, then it wouldn't be out of place to consider climate change an issue of comparable magnitude. It is quite legitimate, therefore, to call it a crisis.

This is not the same as declaring the end of the world is upon us, nor does it mean climate change must be our absolute priority at the expense of all other issues. Ultimately what comes first is human quality of life. You could solve climate change tomorrow if you didn't care about human quality of life, but thankfully we do.

What about the quality of life of coming generations of humans, who will suffer enormously when they are born into a less-hospitable world due to the fecklessness and selfishness of recent generations?

So not wanting to live in abject poverty and not wanting to starve is now "selfish"? You have a weird definition of selfish.

[flash2015]

I see stories like this as an incredibly tiny taste of the truly massive economic pain we will need to inflict on ourselves to get anywhere near climate targets in such a short period of time:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ap-weather

[orathaic]

I disagree with these tactics, fyi, i think we need more technology and confidence in ourselves to build a climate solution which blocks sunlight in a controlled fashion (ie one we can turn on and off easily and cheaply).

But we also need an international agreement on how to go about this.

The alternative seems to be unlimited migration - which in pre-history was perfectly normal - but getting rid of borders seems like it will not go down well with the conservatives...

[Octavious]

I disagree with these tactics, fyi, i think we need more technology and confidence in ourselves to build a climate solution which blocks sunlight in a controlled fashion (ie one we can turn on and off easily and cheaply).

But we also need an international agreement on how to go about this.

The alternative seems to be unlimited migration - which in pre-history was perfectly normal - but getting rid of borders seems like it will not go down well with the conservatives...

You genuinely believe that it's only conservatives who would have a problem with the idea?

[Octavious]

As far as international agreements go, I suspect it would be easier than you imagine. If the US and China were to agree on a plan it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks. China could even act alone if it felt suitably threatened