United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said that countries must phase out the burning of coal, oil, and gas. He added that the current policies would lead to...
This sort of rhetoric is absolutely counter-productive. The human species is obviously not going to get wiped out even with the most extreme climate change scenarios.
Further, the tradeoffs of using fossil fuels are not even close to simple. Energy is wealth, and in a very real sense wealth is both health and quality of life. The whole campaign against fossil fuels frequently seems like the ultra-wealthy trying to consign the entire world middle class to poverty in order to keep polar bears pure (not even to save the species, just to keep them from going south and merging into a grolar bear population).
Okay, let’s cut through the jargon and keep it plain.
First up, your point about humans surviving extreme climate change. Sure, we won’t go extinct, but it’s gonna get messy. Imagine more hurricanes, floods, and wildfires. Plus, food could become scarce with messed up weather patterns. You’re right; it’s not the end of the world. But, it’s also not a picnic.
Next, you mention fossil fuels being tied to wealth and quality of life. Yeah, they’ve helped us a lot in the past. But it’s like running your car on dirty oil; it might keep going, but it’ll break down sooner. Also, let’s not forget, breathing polluted air ain’t great for health.
Your take about the rich trying to push the middle class into poverty to save polar bears seems off the mark. It’s not just about bears and ice. It’s about having a planet that’s comfortable for us to live on. Plus, the worst impacts of climate change and pollution hit poor folks the hardest. It’s not about making people poor; it’s about keeping people alive and healthy.
Lastly, you make it sound like it’s fossil fuels or poverty. That’s not the case. The cost of wind and solar power has plummeted in recent years. We can switch to renewables without making everyone poor. Actually, making the switch could create a lot of jobs and even save us money in the long run. So, it’s not just about hugging trees; it’s about green making green.
I mean, not that complex after a point. Shit’s getting hotter and more intense and it’s the result of human activity. We can either change the activity or accept that it’ll continue to get hotter and more intense.
How much hotter? What concrete harms will result? How much can that be reduced by different levels of reduction in fossil fuel use? What are the harms from that reduction? How do those harms compare? What are the second order effects and their consequences for all of the above?
Now, let’s step back and accept that nobody actually has reliable answers to most of those questions. Further, nobody actually gets to make global policy choices. Even worse, the people who do make national policy choices don’t seem to make those choices based on collecting the best data and then rationally trying to serve the public interest.
Nether the “humanity will die” and “climate change isn’t real” claims are honest attempts to accurately predict the future. They are strategic attempts to influence public perception in a way that is hoped to lead to specific kinds of policy choice that benefit coalitions of special interests at the expense of most of humanity. Most people would be significantly better off if neither of those buckets of policies were implemented.
I legitimately believe that you’ve prompted chatgpt to craft a response that is vapid and devoid of any particular conviction, and then just cut and pasted that response here.
A few million humans can probably survive huddled together near the poles, but for the billions that will die that’s not really distinguishable from human extinction.
This sort of rhetoric is absolutely counter-productive. The human species is obviously not going to get wiped out even with the most extreme climate change scenarios.
Further, the tradeoffs of using fossil fuels are not even close to simple. Energy is wealth, and in a very real sense wealth is both health and quality of life. The whole campaign against fossil fuels frequently seems like the ultra-wealthy trying to consign the entire world middle class to poverty in order to keep polar bears pure (not even to save the species, just to keep them from going south and merging into a grolar bear population).
Okay, let’s cut through the jargon and keep it plain.
First up, your point about humans surviving extreme climate change. Sure, we won’t go extinct, but it’s gonna get messy. Imagine more hurricanes, floods, and wildfires. Plus, food could become scarce with messed up weather patterns. You’re right; it’s not the end of the world. But, it’s also not a picnic.
Next, you mention fossil fuels being tied to wealth and quality of life. Yeah, they’ve helped us a lot in the past. But it’s like running your car on dirty oil; it might keep going, but it’ll break down sooner. Also, let’s not forget, breathing polluted air ain’t great for health.
Your take about the rich trying to push the middle class into poverty to save polar bears seems off the mark. It’s not just about bears and ice. It’s about having a planet that’s comfortable for us to live on. Plus, the worst impacts of climate change and pollution hit poor folks the hardest. It’s not about making people poor; it’s about keeping people alive and healthy.
Lastly, you make it sound like it’s fossil fuels or poverty. That’s not the case. The cost of wind and solar power has plummeted in recent years. We can switch to renewables without making everyone poor. Actually, making the switch could create a lot of jobs and even save us money in the long run. So, it’s not just about hugging trees; it’s about green making green.
What’s your basis for making those factual claims about the future behavior of complex systems?
I mean, not that complex after a point. Shit’s getting hotter and more intense and it’s the result of human activity. We can either change the activity or accept that it’ll continue to get hotter and more intense.
How much hotter? What concrete harms will result? How much can that be reduced by different levels of reduction in fossil fuel use? What are the harms from that reduction? How do those harms compare? What are the second order effects and their consequences for all of the above?
Now, let’s step back and accept that nobody actually has reliable answers to most of those questions. Further, nobody actually gets to make global policy choices. Even worse, the people who do make national policy choices don’t seem to make those choices based on collecting the best data and then rationally trying to serve the public interest.
Nether the “humanity will die” and “climate change isn’t real” claims are honest attempts to accurately predict the future. They are strategic attempts to influence public perception in a way that is hoped to lead to specific kinds of policy choice that benefit coalitions of special interests at the expense of most of humanity. Most people would be significantly better off if neither of those buckets of policies were implemented.
I legitimately believe that you’ve prompted chatgpt to craft a response that is vapid and devoid of any particular conviction, and then just cut and pasted that response here.
So what do you suggest we do? Nothing?
The oil companies (at the very least Exxon) knew it decades ago. The only reason there’s a “debate” is to keep the business pumping profits.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64241994
A few million humans can probably survive huddled together near the poles, but for the billions that will die that’s not really distinguishable from human extinction.
Human species, maybe not. Human technical civilization and horrific population decline? Yes, it is absolutely possible to wipe ourselves out.