Agreed. It's like saying "I'm gonna chop off your leg. Don't worry, you are most likely to survive it."
You also have to account for the famines created by economic regulations when you decide what to do about this problem. If increasing the cost of transportation worldwide by 30% through regulation is going to reduce carbon emissions to the point where the temperature increase is .5 degrees less in 30 years, but doing so creates a food shortage that kills 20 million impoverished people, is that worth it in the short run? And it’s easy to answer “yes” to that question when you’re in the richest country on earth that won’t feel the brunt of that food shortage. http://www.fao.org/news/story/pt/item/1144635/icode/
I mentioned Factfulness, and I really do recommend it to everyone. Left, right or center. He writes about working in Africa during the konzo outbreak back when he was still a practicing doctor. They setup a roadblock to prevent people from coming in and out of the city, which made absolute perfect sense. The unintended side effect is that people who were fleeing the city fled by boat, and 18 people drowned. So here he was thinking he was doing the correct thing and instead he had 18 dead bodies coming in that were basically caused by them panicking. Point is -- you're totally right re unintended consequences of not thinking through our actions on this. The same is true for expecting poorer developing regions to have just as harsh reductions in emissions. Rural china simply isn't going to be able to do it, and you'll probably cause a huge loss of both life and health in trying to force the issue. The American left underestimates unintended side effects of regulation (combined with too much fear on GMOs and nuclear power) while the American right underestimates (or avoids) the importance of leadership from richer nations on the issue. I kinda fall into the camp that if we're strictly looking to governments to solve for this, we're probably fucked. There's got to be a healthy injection of good ol' selfishness and greed to pull it off (which yes, requires Gov't to kick start the market and incentivize things certain things)
Pull what off? This is exactly why nothing is being done. Value is placed on money over everything. This is why the government getting involved, in the form of regulation, is absolutely necessary.
Relax. I'm not saying there isn't a role for regulation. Of course there is. And government will probably end up having to create carbon markets and whatever else. It just needs to be incredibly thoughtful instead of omg-reactionary. But this won't ultimately be solved by governments, it'll be solved by entrepreneurs creating technologies that meet needs currently unmet. The rapid advancement of PVs, the interesting work being done around carbon capture and re-purposing for things like fertilizers, building materials and even clothing, heat/drought tolerant crops --- entrepreneurs are all over this stuff already with the intention of "doing good while doing well." That should be celebrated and encouraged not shit on because "value is placed on money over everything."
I did not use the number wrong, you decided to use the number to squeeze the narrative to your arguement. 97+% believe we are a part of the problem with climate change. Of course the degrees of it change. No poll is an exact measure of feeling. You don’t get presidential polls that give you unlimited answers. Polls usually involved 3-5 answers on a scale. That’s what I’m citing you fucking moron.
Is tmbrules a fucking moron? A) yes B) No C) maybe D) why did you pick B or C? That’s how you come up with 97% you fucking dipshit. Lol at trying to say I’m the one changing the narrative. No
Depends where you're at. Solar in Florida is actually succeeding despite the state working against it. The big companies doing carbon capture, at least the ones that I know of, are all VC funded and not turning a profit. Heat/drought tolerant crops are being done by big bad evil companies like Monsanto. Research gets subsidized at the academic level, certainly. But then it's good ol' greed after that. Gov't is going to make for one hell of a customer though. Climate change is going to change a lot of things, but the bits of our DNA that make us incentive seeking, selfish, competitive monsters isn't one of them. For me that line of reasoning is right up there with fearing things like nuclear power. If it really is an extinction event, then it's really not the time to strive for some sort of idealistic perfection. Solve it, then worry about decommissioning. My guess is we're going to have a much better idea of what the potential geo-engineering solutions are in about a decade, and that'll probably be how long it takes for the general masses to start taking the issue seriously enough to vote in a way that's productive.
Use whatever insult you want. It’s a misleading fake news statistic. Can’t get around that fact. Doesn’t really matter, no one believes the news nowadays anyway.
The “we’ll definitely fix it eventually” argument probably makes complete sense to voters of a party that routinely slashes governmental income while hoping for the future to pay for it
One of the biggest perpetrators of this liberal 97% of climate change bullshit is of course the biased liberal motherfuckers over at (checks notes) NASA https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
97% of scientist agree that the earth is warming. That’s it. The statement stops there. Is the warming bad? How many agree on that? What should we do, if anything, about this warming? What % agree on that? I’ll give you a hint, it’s not close to 97%. It does bring up another question. If 97% agree the earth is warming, then why the transition from “global warming” to climate change?
We literally had to change ‘global warming’ to climate change because some people *cough cough dumb republicans cough cough* think they are checkmating people by bringing snowballs into government because they don’t understand how a ying often produces a yang.
I apologize for debating rules. I’m just hoping some poor sap stumbles upon this thread and, as somebody not informed, has to choose between everybody else and tmbrules and doesn’t decide that 4chan is a good future option.
Humans are social creatures who dominated the planet because we learned to communicate with each other and share and pass on our knowledge to the next generation. We are not innately competitive. In fact we are not really innately anything. But the fact is we are the earths apex predators precisely because we have been collaborating and learning from each other for millions of years until we became smarter than every other thing on this planet. To assume that we are all solitary creatures competing against each other and call that a natural product of evolution shows a child’s understanding of the concept
I’m all for using less water and more drought resistant crops but that’s not a real solution as our largest agricultural areas, many in arid or semiarid desert, rapidly run out of water. California and the Great Plains are not naturally wet enough to grow any crop regardless of how drought resistant you make it. Meanwhile more and more wells run dry on the plains and rivers don’t flow anymore because the aquifers are so low. Drought resistant crops are great and will help us use less water but they aren’t getting our species through climate change. Here’s a fun read that should honestly just be the wiki entry for when you search for America https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optima_Lake
You familiar with the Fermi Paradox at all? Wait But Why has a great read on it. It addresses what you’re talking about. Also fits the broader topic of this thread; our planet’s continued sustainability as it relates to us. And why we haven’t seen any signs of intelligent life elsewhere despite the mass scale of the universe. We’re not innately competitive, though. We are, however, the only ones (of countless socialization examples) that have conquered the elements and are now living above our means. The resources that afford those means are finite, and the fight over said resources, are not somehow part of our DNA makeup. Survival is, sure, but obsessing over excesses are not
I never said we were competitive by nature. Just that we are shit by nature. I understand the confusion because of the post I replied to with that assertion. My bad.
85% of Earths farmland is not irrigated. Meaning they depend on rains to come to water their crops. GMOs are not going to solve the issue if it doesn't rain for 10 months.
I don’t disagree with your assertion, but probably disagree with the how or why. Humanity is fucking wild. And that’s without even accounting for religious differences.
Not everyone is shitty and selfish just because you are. It cracks me up watching you try to get everyone to use your peloton code instead of everyone taking turns.
He only is because some of you assholes look so hard for an argument that you will actually debate him.
We’re also pack creatures. We’re competitive but capable of pooling our resources in order to survive since survival is the goal. Anyone acting like we aren’t innately competitive is being ridiculous though. Jealousy and envy are products of it.
Of course. We're capable of reason and forward thinking. And overcoming natural urges due to consequences in the future. You might have the hottest girl at the party and I might be jealous as hell, but I'm not gonna try to bang her because I don't want to lose my wife and half my shit.
People's history of the world does a great take down of human innate nature nonsense, that is largely used by people to support weak arguments without evidence.
He’s a troll. Ignore him. Your constant efforts to find someone with whom to argue create trolls like TMBRULES
Poster believes the government must tax its population to provide basic human needs to all citizens, but at the same time argues humans aren't innately self serving. Can't explain that.
Seems like you're missing a pretty big point in that people are usually forced to not be competitive. I mean you could live the life of poverty to help others, but we both know at the end of the day you're ok with kids starving in Africa so you can drive your luxury suv.
I mean, there's literally a party that's made it their platform that Americans can't do anything as good as other countries. We can't do healthcare. We can't do immigration. We can't control emissions. We can't do prison reform. We can't do affordable prescriptions. We can't do gun control. All of these things have the same reason being told that they are impossible, it's too hard or expensive. Yet, we're MAGA'ing.
Pro Tip: Don't google "Midget with hot girl" on your work computer if you're looking for a response gif.
Wasn't Genghis Khan considered the greenest ruler because he slaughtered like such a huge number of people that their lands returned to "nature"? Sounds like a solution to me!
But really wouldn't it be partially your wife's fault if you did that? A true centrist would understand this concept.
https://www.livescience.com/11739-wars-plagues-carbon-climate.html But there's a counterpoint that he and his hord enjoyed the raping aspect more than the pillaging which offset any reductions: https://grist.org/article/2011-01-26-genghis-khan-not-that-green-after-all/