The higher these concentrations, the warmer the planet. This is what we're seeing. It seems like a small change, but it is having (and will continue to have) a very large effect on the planet. It's true that it's been much warmer in the past, and that CO2 has (in conjunction) been much higher as well -- during the time of the dinosaurs, for example. But humans weren't around then. That was a much different world with a different biosphere. — Xtrix
The solutions are already known. A magic bullet isn't necessary. No miracles, no totalitarianism, no radical/shocking upheaval of human life: investments in clean energy and research, a shift in subsidies, carbon taxes (proposed by many Republicans), a shift in investments to cleaner industries (which the major asset managers are already doing), divestment from fossil fuels, retrofitting buildings, infrastructure -- including high-speed rail and the public transportation systems, higher efficiency standards, better regulations, and so on. — Xtrix
It's a big moment -- right now in congress there's a chance for the use of a reconciliation bill to fund much of this stuff, which would be a good start. Republicans are trying to block it all, and some moderate democrats are also standing in the way. It seems like an absurd scenario, but that's what "capitalism" does. When congress is bought by special interests who don't want anything done, usually nothing gets done. Not until it's too late or enormous damage has been done -- which is already true. — Xtrix
t'll effect where we live, as sea level rise will impact coastal communities. It'll effect agriculture -- so the global food supply, due to droughts and desertification. That will be devastating. It will effect fishing. It will effect water supply (as the mountain ice caps disappear, as they're already doing, and rivers dry up due to increase heat, as is already happening). There will be massive movements of people from one area to another -- much larger than anything in human history (think Bangladesh alone, which is increasingly becoming more and more inundated with water). That's millions of refugees -- not thousands. I could go on and on. Much of this is already happening, as you know. — Xtrix
That long-winded rant was really good. 10/10 — Kasperanza
You can't have economics if you take away people's freedom. — Kasperanza
the real-world consequences of such membership are likely going to be severe (e.g. losing your job) — baker
They change behaviour as well. Online everyone's an individualist at the centre of their own virtual world. Real groups have real group dynamics. — Kenosha Kid
building more advanced societies would help — ssu
I mean yeah there's all this science, but what are we supposed to do about it? Just cut out fossil fuels without a real replacement? To me that's scary. Epstein's point is that fossil fuels protect and enhance people's lives. Fossil fuels protect people from heat waves. And yet the environmentalists want to limit them. I find it to be worrisome. — Kasperanza
I'm all for clean, green, and hip energy if it can be sustained under capitalism and not through government intervention. — Kasperanza
Thanks. So no corrections to what I posted, then? — javra
To my mind ↪Banno already answered this aptly. — javra
Do you agree with this premise? If not, on what grounds should a person’s freedom to pursue happiness via mass murder be prohibited by others? Or should it not be? — javra
If you do agree, then by what consistent reasoning should freedom to devastate the world and the humans that inhabit it in the name of personal happiness not be prohibited? — javra
Hmm.. aren't greenhouses good for the environment? It is a "green" gas. That's good for nature. — Kasperanza
And how do you know this is all due to CO2? — Kasperanza
Why limit fossil fuels if climate change is inevitable? — Kasperanza
The government doesn't get things done. PEOPLE get things done. — Kasperanza
Policies don't save the planet. Businesses, products, and fossil fuels save the planet. Innovators and entrepreneurs save the planet with their ideas. People need to be FREE to test out their ideas. — Kasperanza
I mean yeah it will effect us, but I don't see any impending doom. — Kasperanza
It makes zero sense to me. — Kasperanza
i was talking about economic freedom, a freedom that is sustained with individual rights. Why would I advocate for a freedom in which murder is legal? — Kasperanza
Human beings are the standard of value. Individual rights allow for a rational freedom. — Kasperanza
Hmm.. aren't greenhouses good for the environment? It is a "green" gas. That's good for nature. Having a hot climate like a the dinosaurs did sounds great! Maybe our climate can change to a more dino-like biosphere. — Kasperanza
And how do you know this is all due to CO2? What if the planet is going through a generational shift, or getting solar flares from the sun? And do you really think the climate would stop changing if we stopped releasing CO2 in the air? Would it slow it down enough to stop climate change? Why limit fossil fuels if climate change is inevitable? — Kasperanza
Under capitalism, people wouldn't be waiting around for the government to fix the issue, — Kasperanza
I mean yeah it will effect us, but I don't see any impending doom. You talk like humans won't be handle this. When problems arise, people adapt. Also, fossil fuels are the greatest defense against these issues. — Kasperanza
Haha wow, fishing will be affected. Okay so fishing affected? So what all the fish die. People can find food elsewhere.
When some lands become dry and barren, new lands will open up. Maybe Canada and Russia will become much warmer and inhabitable.
If the sea levels rise, just move. It's great there will be mass movements of people. Immigration is good. — Kasperanza
It makes zero sense to me.
— Kasperanza
Because you're apparently completely unwilling to consider future consequences. — Echarmion
A really great point that Alex Epstein makes is that as CO2 emissions have gone up, climate related deaths have plummeted.
https://youtu.be/0_a9RP0J7PA at 16:55
If no one is dying, what are we so worried about? Why would we take away fossil fuels, when fossil fuels are preventing deaths and increasing people's quality of life?
It makes zero sense to me. — Kasperanza
Where?Fossil fuels protect people from heat waves. — Kasperanza
The capitalism you’re talking about — Rand’s version— doesn’t exist. It’s a fantasy. Try looking at the real world instead.
There’s no reason to believe our government can’t solve this issue, and rather easily. What’s in the way is what you’d call “capitalism”: greedy, profit-driven industries who buy off politicians and lobby for what they want. Pretty obvious. — Xtrix
No, they’re the cause of the problem. They and the privileging of profit over people. You’re simply deluded. — Xtrix
Just some kid doing his impression of Ayn Rand. I don’t see much point in continuing. — Xtrix
Restrictions take away freedom. People need freedom to be happy and flourish. Really basic concept. — Kasperanza
Actually, I think people like him have it really good in life. So often, ignorance in fact is bliss. — baker
If we have any hope of dealing with climate change, it's allowing capitalism to come up with solutions with competition and innovation, not the government controlling people like animals. And depriving them of fossil fuels, which is our only means of survival from the climate. — Kasperanza
Lastly, you likewise keep repeating that fossil fuels are the "only means of survival from the climate." Based on what you've previously said, you mean air conditioning and electricity and things like that, which is mind-boggling. The more we use fossil fuels, the worse the situation will get. Period. So yes, we need electricity for heat and air conditioning, and we need transportation. This can all be done with renewable energy -- nuclear energy, wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, etc. That's what needs to happen. That's what we're transitioning to. — Xtrix
I don't give a squawk what the climate does — Kasperanza
That’s because you’re scientifically illiterate. But I don’t care if you don’t care— by all means troll somewhere else and be happy with your Ayn Rand/capitalism worship. — Xtrix
Ayn Rand makes me happy; I think she's a beautiful thinker. So I'll stick to it. — Kasperanza
When people make a profit, it's because they've provided value to the economy, — Kasperanza
Yeah, the real world sucks because people don't know what real freedom is.
I've lost my faith in government, especially after COVID. The government passes laws, in other words, restrictions. Restrictions take away freedom. People need freedom to be happy and flourish. Really basic concept. — Kasperanza
Some people really are able to think and live in cutthroat terms, though. They don't have humanist sensitivities. For them, it's perfectly normal that species, including humans become extinct -- nothing to make a fuss about. They can be quite careless about their own death as well.Laughable if it wasn't so sad that people really think like this.
/.../
Yeah, another kid who thinks he has it all figured out because he's discovered some Ayn Rand or Thomas Sowell — Xtrix
For them, it's perfectly normal that species, including humans become extinct -- nothing to make a fuss about. — baker
According to new analysis from the Center for American Progress, there are still 139 elected officials in the 117th Congress, including 109 representatives and 30 senators, who refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change. All 139 of these climate-denying elected officials have made recent statements casting doubt on the clear, established scientific consensus that the world is warming—and that human activity is to blame. These same 139 climate-denying members have received more than $61 million in lifetime contributions from the coal, oil, and gas industries.
While the number of climate deniers has shrunk by 11 members (from 150 to 139) since the CAP Action Fund’s analysis of the 116th Congress—largely in the face of growing and overwhelming public support for action on climate—their numbers still include the majority of the congressional Republican caucus.* These climate deniers comprise 52 percent of House Republicans; 60 percent of Senate Republicans; and more than one-quarter of the total number of elected officials in Congress. Furthermore, despite the decline in total overall deniers in Congress, a new concerning trend has emerged: Of the 69 freshmen representatives and senators elected to their respective offices in 2020, one-third deny the science of climate change, including 20 new House Republicans and three-of-four new Republican senators. Of note, no currently serving Democratic or independent elected officials have engaged in explicit climate denial by this analysis’ definition. —
Nowhere does this blog say "everything is fine, go back to consuming" it just said "not as bad as the media makes it out to be". — Albero
But you don't have to be disagreeable and go "oh you're just delusional, you don't know anything. We're fucked and you're an idiot." — Albero
That's fine and all, but scientists aren't infallible. I could easily flip what you're saying around and just say this particular scientist is being alarmist and going against established literature. — Albero
Hell, even Michael Mann who tends to exaggerate the severity of the issue admits that the "we're doomed" mindset is a new form of denialism. — Albero
I agree with you that the other poster here is being silly-free market capitalism isn't the proper solution to climate change, but it's also false that current governments aren't doing anything about climate change. Many are doing the bare minimum, but a lot of other countries (most notably China) consistently manage to overachieve their IPCC pledges. — Albero
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.