Do you guys believe in human caused Climate Change?
Would be pretty cool to get you're opinions on this topic. Half of the people I know don't seem to believe in it or thing it is exaggerated, whilst the other half think the world is going to end. What about you guys my fellow monkeys?
Sorry for my awful spelling I just realised.
Jesus Christ the left agenda is moronic. Yes climate change is real BUT that is quite literally the entire history of planet Earth (massive changes in going from extreme heat to extreme cold to extreme heat and etc). Humans have likely accelerated it a bit and that's it. This was always the end state
The issue is not climate change, it's overpopulation. If we had 3bl people today instead of 8bl people I guarantee this would not be an issue. But it's not our jobs in the West to fix the entire problem, we should make some efforts but it's just the inevitable. Worrying about climate change living in NA or Europe especially is the very definition of Gen Z's inability to cope with any remote level of real life stress which humans have faced since the history of mankind
you called tons of people stupid and went full Malthusian in the same post. This hits every single square on the “idiot bingo” card
Malthusians are the absolute worst. Bunch of degrowther non sense
The history of mankind? You're saying Gen Z is a bunch of pussies for not wanting to hunt wooly mammoths have a life expectancy of 25?
Overpopulation isn't a problem. Basic supply and demand tells us that more demand would lead to a depletion of resources to sustain the population. We're farrrr away from that point
delete, nothing substantial to add.
Depopulation will cause climate change to get worse.
No one is going back to the old ways of pre industrialized life. Oil and Gas are the cleanest froms of globally traded energy that have ever existed. When the population falls like it is trending towards now a few things are going to happen.
1) Global trade is going to collapse, this caused by the rapidly aging population and is accelerated by America stepping back from the role of global cop on the oceans.
2) Countries are going to be cut off from the trade of oil and gas. This will cause them to go to coal.
3) Food surplus will collaspe further accelerating the depopulation trend. Which will further accelerate #2.
4) Rinse and repeat 2/3.
This is a great example of a stupid mindset. Where do you think 13 million climate-displaced Bangladeshi's will go as sea levels rise (even marginally)? Urgent Climate Action Crucial for Bangladesh to Sustain Strong Growth (worldbank.org).
Yes, humans have caused climate change. Is it a problem for our generation or the near future? No.
Oh, well. Let's see how the people in Florida will think about it next decade.
If that is the case, why are coastal florida property prices so high and still increasing?
Literally just a repeat of "let's see how unvaccinated people feel about vaccines when they die of covid"
Doesn’t this mean that they will receive more solar power energy? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
I don't think this is a matter of belief - it's a fact and there's a lot of scientific evidence showing that climate change is real.
You should be asking what we should do about it. That's the real underlying question where people diverge.
I think its real too, but a-lot of people don't seem to believe it. I think the obsession of the media with this issue is actually back firing, in that people are getting fed up/in-different to it. Although I think it can still be a matter of debate as we live in a democracy.
No there isn’t
Sure climate change is real BUT what is the cause? How fast are humans contributing? Should we rely on Al Gore or is there fact based evidence that can pinpoint because right now it's all virtue signaling.
Pretty much every reputable scientist in a field which studies the climate, or ancillary fields which touch on it, agrees that anthropogenic climate change is a fact. There is no "virtue signaling".
If you don't believe that human activity is contributing to climate change, you are a moron. Full stop. There just isn't any rational cause to take the other side of this, which is why so few people with the educational background to understand it do. If you want to discuss potential solutions, that has a wider scope for debate.
The concept of the tragedy of the commons goes back to Ancient Greece. The fact that you still get science-denying lunatics out there is proof positive that the concept is alive and well in the 21st century
I wouldn't go with a data argument. Mostly because those who push back on this will fall into one very daming position. Much of the data was manipulated and some of it was even outright fabricated. Being someone who thinks that climate change is impacted by humans I have to honestly say, I have to admit this is true.
It's impossible to get people to agree on how to deal with something when one side of the discussion does shit like that to paint a picture they want people to see.
Also we are letting idiots and children lead this debate when really it should be a discussion about how do we improve economic growth and do things that will help mitigate the impacts of climate change. But no, we have people who run around claiming the world will end in 6 years. Which if true, who gives a fuck what we do. So because of that I am going to go get on my private jet and just fly in circles for hte fuck of it.
I'm surprised this comment got so many silver bananas. You act like everyone understands that humans cause climate change and the only thing that's up for debate is how to solve it. This may be true around the center-right to center-left leaning NYC finance people that you and others here speak with, but the position of the modern Republican party and other groups that receive oil money is to completely deny it. In both 2015 and 2023, every Republican candidate straight up denied it. Funny enough, in their internal research, those oil companies absolutely do admit that climate change is happening and even take rising sea levels and more extreme weather into effect when designing new oil rigs.
It hilarious to see people in an industry that relies on so heavily on modeling speaking in "facts". Do you speak this way about the models you put together? Would you stake your life on the predictions of the models you or your company creates? I say this to point out that models are routinely very wrong, and anyone who thinks that they should be taken as gospel is, at best naive or, at worst, an idiot. I don't get why people on this forum can't connect the dots to science and understand that they use the same fundamental math to predict, but it's much more complicated, meaning much more room for error. In investing, we know there is a herd mentality; why would you think that scientists operate any differently? At this point, no mainstream scientist would dare break with the consensus, if covid taught us anything, it's that our institutions of science are just as corrupt as anything else.
It's a complete mischaracterization of the science to say this is a "fact", The science says that we are more confident than not that humans are having an impact on the climate. We don't actually know anything beyond that, and it will take decades, or more likely centuries for us to reconcile these predications. We are making some educated guesses on what we can do to mitigate our impact, but we really don't know if it's going to help or not.
Anyone that has modeled any data should know this.
It's hilarious to see someone who pretends to be so logical ignore all the facts. You act as if this is all hypothetical, when we have pretty accurate measures of things like global average temperatures, sea level changes, etc. The globe is warming, sea levels are rising, extreme weather events are becoming more common. Without decades of painstaking data collection, you might be right - it might be the case that these are all just natural occurrences and humans have no impact. But climatologist models have been predicting exactly these things for years, so it's not just a hypothetical anymore. This was precisely the way climate change deniers operated for many years.
When your underwriting says "If X is true, then Y will occur" and then that happens, over and over and over, maybe the 500th time around you go in with an expectation that we should assume the model is correct.
Ah, and here we go. COVID did not teach us any such thing - the scientific consensus around COVID did not accord perfectly with your feelings, and like most right wing snowflakes, you decided that meant science was wrong, because your gut couldn't possibly be mistaken!
God this is such a bullshit, cop-out answer. Science also says that we are more confident than not that the sun will rise tomorrow - do you plan your schedule on the off chance of eternal darkness? No. You make thousands of assumptions every day and then act on them as if they're certainties, but all of a sudden when presented with the slightest amount of sacrifice it's all "well lets not assume guys!".
Science tells us with a massive confidence interval that humans are impacting the climate. We know an absolute ton beyond that, so I don't know why you even bother with that kind of lie; this weird attempt at undermining confidence in the scientific consensus on this issue is obviously related to the COVID shit, but I cannot see why.
And we already have a ton of tools in our collective toolbox for mitigating climate change, and as I said above, despite the fact that people like you will watch the science be correct 999 times, we should not be obligated to consult you before anticipating the results of the 1,000th experiment and acting now.
I mean, can you imagine if the world applied this awful argument to everything? "We don't know that there are any negative side effects from giving 3 year olds gender-transitioning hormones, so lets hand 'em out like candy!"
It’s obviously a topic of debate. Weird to just be like “nah, fact”
I mean, it is a fact. The topic of debate is "what is the most effective solution to mitigating climate change with the fewest possible costs." Unfortunately, science deniers have hijacked the entire conversation so that we cannot have that debate. It's like if you were talking about how long a given object would take to fall from the Empire State Building to the ground and someone (right wing internet troll, to be specific) came on and said that we don't even know for sure that the object would fall, because they themselves hadn't done all the physics work to prove gravity is real.
As my smart friend said earlier, overpopulation is a bigger issue than any other problem anyone suggests we should collectively fix. Any problems that come up with using fossil fuels, etc is a problem because there are too many people on Mother Earth. Any potential solutions will only make a dent since the world's population still has needs that will have to be satiated through methods that will accelerate climate change. There's not much you or anyone else can do about it.
You want to solve the 'crisis': Have less kids, or none at all.
I actually don't think we have an over-population issue, certainly not in the Western and Asian world at least. I'm sure new technology will enable us to sustain higher population levels.
Stop listening to liberal propaganda to stop you having kids. The entire western and East Asian world are actually facing an underpopulation crisis. There will not be enough people to prop up the economy.
I'm sorry, what is this straw man argument you just erected? Where, exactly, are you getting all this "liberal propaganda"?
Here is a newsflash that most conservatives don't seem able to understand - what Fox or OANN or Breitbart or whatever is telling you is a liberal opinion, is not always true! It's why those "news" outlets are repeatedly sued for lying - because they lie. Often. To a much greater degree than the "MSM" conservative media is interested in figuring out what will scare its viewers, and then claiming that all those DemonRats and libruls are out there chanting in the streets about it. If Fox News says it, it's probably wrong.
Your "smart friend" is an idiot.
Funny enough, I believe that new technology eliminates the need for larger populations rather than supports it. Throughout history, larger families have been needed initially to support farming/hunting, etc for individual families and communities, and then to support the growth of economies. With new tech like AI/robotics, that need will be eliminated since there'll be computers and robots doing a lot/most of the work. Result being that larger populations will no longer be needed to grow the economy.
You are likely correct in the sense that we probably don't need to increase population to achieve economic growth. However, I also think that it would still be preferable to maintain birth rates at least replenishment levels to avoid population decline and all the social chaos that comes with it (eg look at Japan and Korea they are facing major problems).
Nope, you need population growth to grow th economy. Or do you suggest we have a bunch of robots that just make shit for no reason to warehouse somewhere to sell to the ever decreasing numbers of people at an ever acclerating date in the future?
To think this is true means you do not understand even the most basic things about economcis.
Sorry to break it to you, but this makes NO sense at all.
Rewrite pls.
With or without human's contributing to climate change, Earth's climate is in constant flux swinging the pendulum between the ice age and volcanic activity (think boiling magma). Was long before humans existed and will be when we are extinct. And eventually the sun will burn out and earth will be unlivable. Of course these cycles take millions of years. I would assume we're not anywhere near the end.
The population issue is a good one as much of the underdeveloped world needs to access resources.
Anyway, arrogant of us to think we have the power to stop the Earth's natural course of returning to heat or ice. Are we influencing it? Maybe at an irrelevant amount big picture. As China and India bring hundreds of millions of people on line with power grids, clean water, you'll see them continue to build massive cities with disgusting smoke stacks because they kind of have to.
Ah yes, humans are barely influencing the rate of climate change…
The US emits more than twice as much carbon/person as China does, and about 8.5x what an average Indian does. If you care about the population burden or pollution, the obvious answer is for Westerners to give up some comfort, not complain about East/South Asian people having too many kids.
And yes, the climate of the earth is always changing. But not as rapidly as it is now. The average global temperature during the last Ice Age was ~8C, and was about 13.7C in the 1880s. During the 20th and 21st centuries, since industrialization has kicked off, the globe has been heating up at a rate of about 0.2C per decade, which ignores the fact that said growth has more than doubled in the last 3 or 4 decades. We've now accomplished in the space of about 140 years about a third of the heating that occurred in the preceding 20,000 or so. If you saw that level of acceleration of costs in your model and ignored it or waved it away, you'd be fired.
Not saying I don't care . It would be great to act as cleanly as possible, but nowhere near the degree the looney left is wanting to require. If there was an honest debate it would factor in the massive current energy and emissions creation to mine, build, charge, store, replace ev batteries. Several studies document that the batteries required for trucks would currently create a power grid problem and rolling blackouts in CA, yet they still have a law that requires it by 2035 (I believe) without any of the infrastructure available.
And those per capita numbers with China and India are meaningless because , A) they have 4 and 5 times are population, and B) most of them are not on the grid yet. If India is emitting 8.5x per capita less then us, It's because a billion people don't have stable electricity, cars of any type, TVs, appliances, etc. But they will or are they not allowed those luxuries because of the climate issues?
An interesting podcast I listened to recently claimed 35-40% of all emissions in the US come from buildings. That includes concrete. Apparently oil is an ingredient, not just used to transport. That means literally hundreds of millions if not billions of people in the underdeveloped world will be replacing their shelter with actual homes at some point, I assume using concrete. Is the US supposed to stop using concrete.
We need a real energy policy and a real green transition policy that actually acknowledges that fossil fuels are flat out necessary and a major component of any sustainable program. Sustainability also means keeping the lights on. This past summer Europe experienced rolling blackouts because their power grids couldn't handle the load supposedly being handled by wind and solar. It's all good. We should be using all of it in concert with a well thought out plan that acknowledges oil as a major contributor.
It's real and it's going to be (mostly) fine. We've been through worse.
Look around. Annual wildfires, draughts, global heatwaves causing deaths. Many of you on this forum live in Florida, which will continue to be one of the worst impacted states. 2023 had the hottest July on record. The second hottest? 2016.
This will (continue to) impact many people in our generation and our kids will see a degradation in quality of life / increased risk of climate-related disasters due to (human-caused) climate change.
It’s not a matter of opinion that humans have greatly accelerated the rate of climate change and have created feedback loops that are further accelerating it. It is a scientific fact. There are things we can do to try to slow the problem, but it has become overly politicized so many choose to bury their heads in the sand rather than actually facing up to reality.
So I guess overpopulation is now the counterpoint? Lmao. Sure population growth exacerbates the issue, but as the world becomes wealthier fertility rates have continued to fall. There are actual steps we can take to address climate change that do not involve population control.
It’s always impressive the cognitive dissonance that those with a vested (political, business) interest in one side can create to fool you into thinking that the issues we face as a society are unavoidable/no feasible solution exists. Reminds me of many of the issues surrounding certain other politically-charged subjects (“it’s a shame there’s nothing we can do about this” the shocked citizen says as schoolchildren continue to die from gun violence).
Extreme weather events have always happened on earth. You just think its more prevalent now because the media decided to cover them more to push the climate change agenda on everyone.
The earth was literally completely covered in ice 15,000 years ago. Do you know how recent that is?
Always love when people try to argue about scientific facts
https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/weather-related-disasters…
That article barely gives any statistics about the supposed increase. Even if there was its likely due to an increase in reporting
Lol. ok here’s another source for you on specifically how climate change drives extreme weather (they link to a study since you seem to require primary data)
idk why I’m sending you data since I know you won’t change your mind (see original comment re: people w/ heads in sand)
https://www.npr.org/2023/01/09/1147805696/climate-change-makes-heat-wav…
Not an argument because the earth's climate has always changed. There's no data which proves "human causes" of climate change are causing extreme weather events
lol:
But yes, there is no empirical way to prove that a specific weather event was caused by climate change. We can only demonstrate that humans are responsible for a rapid increase in global temperatures, and that increases the odds of extreme weather. Many people could draw conclusions based on the above.
The data showing that humans have contributed to climate change is inconclusive. And since there's plenty of evidence of climate scientists who disagree with that consensus being censored and blacklisted (similar to covid pandemic) I simply don't believe mainstream articles.
Well hey, hats off to you for being an independent thinker!
I, too, sometimes choose to ignore widely accepted facts and sense when it suits me.
I'd be very interested to see all that "evidence" of censorship.
Your gut isn't a substitute for scientific consensus. This idea that science has to confirm your feelings is so fucking dangerous. Free riders like you are the biggest danger to humanity, in so many ways - I'll live through a dozen hurricanes but your kind of idiocy is going to burn the planet to a ball of ash
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/09/03/natural-disaster-cli…
If it's just the woke media how come insurers are not covering for weather disasters anymore? Climate change is making extreme weather more common and all the insurance companies agree with it.
America has never had less acres burn in wildfires than this year. This is also true for the last decade. We have had less huricanes in the past 10 years than any other point in recorded history. etc. etc.
Read Patrick Moore, if you haven't already:
https://benfieldgroup.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Patrick_Moore_Shoul…
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/07/19/excessive-summer-he…;
Hope this link works. Not saying this is the only argument but it's worth reading. Like most things put out by the media and government, they seldom speak from a 360 degree perspective. In other words, they have an agenda. This articles discusses the increase in heat related deaths over the past two decades are on the rise. Guess what, turns out cold related deaths are on the decline, and by a far more significant amount, like dramatic difference. So on a net basis, the earth getting warmer has saved more lives than it has taken. Of course I'm assuming the figures are accurate. Different spin on this topic and one I think is likely not considered by many.
The writer literally says this at the bottom...
"However, we shouldn’t read into this that global warming is a good thing. Climate change has long-term impacts on sea levels, animal and plant life, and agriculture, each of which can have lasting deleterious effects on human health and wellbeing. Also, heat exposure deaths disproportionately impact impoverished regions of the world, including poor areas of the U.S. which implies that over time they’re much more affected by temperature-related deaths."
You do realize that isn't what the poster was saying right? He was just saying that you have to take into account the bias and agendas of the people doing the research and making the reports on it.
Climate change is always discussed in ways that talk about how many more people will die because of the heat. Well if it caused less deaths from cold you can make the argument that it is a good thing becuase it saves more lives. Does this take into account everything? No, but it directly contradicts a primary point of argument.
It's real, but broadly not my problem. I live a relatively low-carbon lifestyle as a city dweller. I don't worry if that hamburger is going to add an extra 5lbs of CO2 to the atmosphere. (Cows are actually catastrophically bad for the environment. Chickens are raised in inhumane conditions but really are much "greener") I looked at 100 year flood maps when buying, but that's about the extent of my concerns.
Like everything else, it's a risk to be mitigated and hedged.
yes, and here is a totally off-topic take on this topic: Companies that don't implement low carbon emission/ESG policies make a favor to consumers because implementing those systems/changes will increase the cost of their products/services that will ultimately be borne by consumers. So why the consumers, that can't even afford to buy a house no more, should sacrifice even more from their side in such a shitty economic environment? First, let the Government improve our economic conditions (and I'm not talking about inflation/housing/national debt - there is a shit load of things to solve), and then, only then, we could sacrifice more of our side to help the ESG-friendly policies. Because how can you care about worldwide problems when you can't even make it to the end of the month? That's like thinking about the meaning of life when you're starving to death. And this argument also explains how we got here. We started contaminating the world when the first emissions appeared in the industrial period, but people back then didn't care as much about pollution not because they weren't aware, but because the abstract cost of contaminating the planet was incomparable to the advantage that it offered to citizens: More food/clothes/products, more employment, higher quality of life, etc. (it's not a coincidence that it was called the 3rd most important economic revolution in history).
So yes, it's caused by humans and we're also the ones that can reverse it, but the "reversing" part is almost impossible at the moment because even US/Europe has a hard time shifting towards 0 carbon emission agendas, so imagine China/India/Africa that are even more socialist and they're existence relies on those factories and cheap production (=higher emissionS)
The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race…..
No but seriously, yes, humans have exacerbated greenhouse gas emissions above the natural rate. This is irrefutable. What is questionable (and highly politicized) is the implementation of the solution.
Damn that first line caught me off guard lol
The problem with climate change is that unless it directly affects an individual, not enough people will care. If I were a politician I would be putting all my efforts and funding into how to recapture harmful gases, etc. rather than just hoping humans will be unselfish and actually change behaviors.
The other problem is that the way it affects people to start is generally harsh weather patterns, which most people will just attribute to “Mother Nature, what can you do”. It’s unfortunate because we are entering an El Nina year, and in combination with the warming we have already seen, everyone is about to experience one of the craziest weather years in our lifetimes. It’s already begun with hurricanes in California, wildfires in Canada, terrential flooding in China that they are try not to publicize (they literally had to block Beijing).
It’s fine to be doubtful, but the reality is climate change is one of those things that humans will not care about until it’s too late. This next year will be a minor yet crazy taste of what our future could hold if we don’t get our shit together. Don’t need to take my word, just watch the crazy shit that will continue to happen (and people will shrug off and send thoughts and prayers)
What's up with climate activist protests? I saw some climate activists block Burning Man for no reason. And also have seen them throw orange paint on paintings and buildings. Why?
Burning Man attendees roadblocked by climate activists: ‘They have a privileged mindset’ | Burning Man festival | The Guardian
It’s totally real, but projections of sea level rise are still quite moderate.
It will be environmentally destructive to areas with delicate ecologies, or coastal marshes and deltas. This will take away many natural flood barriers from people in the developing world in countries that cannot effectively mitigate these issues. Small coastal towns may see inundation of their groundwater depending on the geology of the rock and aquifers underneath them.
However, the effect on the average individual in the developed world over the next 100 years is vastly oversold. And many laypeople expect rates of rise far higher than even alarmist models predict. If we think cities like Miami are not just going to build a seawall, we are nuts. Technological innovation and the fact that it is milder than many think especially in temperate climate zones like most of the United States.
I think this overselling is used to sell a political agenda in many ways, leading to a lot of policy I personally do not think makes sense. But I understand why they do it. Coastal marshes, the developing world & small city water systems don’t sell as well as an alarmist story implying life may end as we know it, especially in a way that can be digested by your average news consumer.
I buy into what the climate alarmists say about as much as I buy into what doomsday cult leaders who have incorrectly been predicting the end of the world for several decades have to say.
First off who is climate and why does he keep changing?just be yourself bro
No. I've been tracking this scam since childhood. Every year it becomes obvious that it's intended to create economic rents for politically motivated scam artists.
Yes because I don’t lie to myself
I would say humans do impact the climate and certain measure can be taken to mitigate the issue. But it's overblown at your face. Business models are structures on this matter where now you got to spend more, face inconvenience, unable to use your favourite product and the worse compromise your health(going vegan). I'm sure if all those billionaires who actually pools some significant amount of money can find the best way to mitigate these issue (Funding carbon capture, plastic eating bacteria, giga size ocean cleaner).
People's beliefs on climate change seems to be on a spectrum from people who don't believe it is real at all to those who believe it is 100% man made and we are all going to die. Like most things the truth is somewhere in the middle. The climate has been changing since the Earth has existed (hence why we aren't in the ice age anymore) but humans have also contributed and potentially accelerated climate change, nothing can exist without having some effect on their environment. Definitely a mix of naturally occurring and human effects.
The issue now is that there are massive financial incentives to spread the fear and overplay human involvement and the ability of humans to "reduce" their carbon footprint. Everyone pushing the climate change agenda seems to be the same people who have a "solution" (product) that can fix it.
This is absurd. In no way, shape, or form are the people pushing the climate change agenda the ones who want to sell a product to solve it. The problem is that there may not be a solution, except for prevention.
Beyond that, it's a classic tragedy of the commons scenario. Look, it would be absolutely awesome if we could allocate the costs of climate change to the people who vote for or against policies to mitigate it. Like, I'll buy myself some insurance against it now, as long as I don't have to bail out the people who don't buy said insurance in the future. But we all know that isn't how it works, because we've watched Republican politicians (to use a US example) play this game over and over again for the last few decades. Complain about government overreach regarding climate-related regulation, bitch and moan about stifling business and free enterprise, and then turn around with their hands out for that sweet disaster relief the moment anything happens. Look at Ron DeSantis; says climate change is bullshit while repeatedly asking for federal money to fund adaption and prevention for things like rising sea levels... which is a result of global warming.
An intellectually honest and ethical person wouldn't want to have it both ways, but I suppose those aren't terms that really apply to anthropogenic climate change deniers.
Look at most of the folks pushing the climate change agenda and you will find they have investments in solar, wind, and other alternative energy related companies. Nothing wrong with promoting alternative sources of energy production but it becomes an issue when those same people start perpetuating lies about such things as nuclear energy to remove it as a potential competitor, which is a safe and clean form of energy. Additionally, there is no prevention, the climate has been changing since long before humans existed and it will continue to change long after we are gone.
Question
How many
a) category 4-5 hurricanes or
b) degree increases in average/peak daily temperatures or
c) inch increase in sea level or
d) etc...
Does it take until we get some unified action to reduce this risk?
Take politics/science out of it and just look at the risk of doing nothing.
Insurance companies in Florida have already made their market decision and they are bailing.
I find it frustrating that climate change activists attribute every single natural event to human-caused climate change. Snow, fire, floods, draughts, hurricanes, etc., even when we know that an event (e.g. wild fires) was caused by an acute event, such as arson or electrical fire. I remember the 2011 Japanese Tsunami being attributed to climate change (it was an earthquake in the ocean).
What's more, they'll attribute specific weather events to specific individuals. The View yesterday was blaming Donald Trump (who I hate, btw) for the deluge at Burning Man because he wasn't proactive in fighting climate change. The media tried to suggest indirectly that Ron DeSantis was responsible for a destructive hurricane in Florida during hurricane season because he rejected $350 million of federal aid for energy efficient appliances. It's just a religious cult for so many of these people.
Belief in human-caused climate change is widely supported by scientific evidence. It's important to base our views on scientific consensus and take proactive steps to address this critical issue.
But here is the fundamental problem with this way of thinking. Is it a better use of resources to focus on flood walls, for example, as they did in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, or to, say, spend $10 or $20 billion on more energy efficient appliances which will have no calculable impact on hurricane strength? Is it better to spend resources on removing forest brush to control wild fires or to spend resources on increasing wind power, which will have no material impact on the temperature in California? Is it better to be fully dedicated to replacing all fossil fuels with very expensive clean energy or is it better to rapidly replace coal with much cleaner natural gas, which is abundant and inexpensive? Is it better to spend 40 years and $100+ billion on building a high speed train to nowhere or to incentivize producers to build electric car infrastructure?
Your gut reaction is to say, "well do all of the above!" But in reality, resources are finite. The U.S., much to its credit, has largely rejected the path of climate change activists over the last 30 years and has instead embraced mitigation, natural gas, and slow but steady progress. As a result, in 30 years, the U.S. has had enormous success in halting its growth of CO2 emissions despite huge economic growth. If one didn't know any better, one could easily think that the climate change activists' positions are so insanely idiotic, inefficient, and even counterproductive that they actually must have a secret agenda separate from climate change.
I mean... do people "believe" in cancer?
There is nothing to "believe." It is a scientific fact that humans have caused a rather drastic acceleration in the warming of the Earth due to our burning of fossil fuels.
The question is, what do we do about it? My answer has always been to let the true free market do its thing. The greatest thing the government could do to help climate change is to stop oil, gas, and coal subsidies. Many people and businesses are switching to renewable energy because, from solely a cost perspective, it is almost always going to be cheaper these days. Ending fossil fuel subsidies would simply accelerate this trend. The free market did a perfectly fine job with the world's first "green revolution" when we switched from coal to oil and gas, and I have no doubt it will (without government interference) do a perfectly fine job again with the transition from oil and gas to solar, nuclear, etc.
I find these takes to be nonsensical. You can't in one breath say there has been "drastic" warming and use the language of the alarmists while also saying, "meh, the free market can handle it." Well, the free market can only handle the United States' CO2 output. If there is really an emergency, then the free market is not sufficient to handle China, India, and the rising third world. That's kind of the point...If there is an alarming amount of climate change, then that requires international totalitarianism to regulate every aspect of the lives of citizens in every major economic power. So that circles back around to the rational people (such as yours truly) who say that the totalitarianism/proposed totalitarianism of the climate change activists in the United States is in vain because it will serve to make our lives worse without producing any real benefits toward slowing/mitigating climate change. Everyone who follows climate change policy internationally knows China, India, et al have zero interest in taking material steps toward bending the curve of their CO2 emissions. None. No interest whatsoever. Their first responsibility is to their people who live in grinding poverty.
That's just all the hot wind blowing around from the last GOP debate...
“The only existential threat humanity faces even more frightening than a nuclear war is global warming going above 1.5 degrees in the next 20 — 10 years,” Biden said at a press conference at the JW Marriott Hotel Hanoi on Sunday.
I'm a big believer in climate change and think it needs to be addressed. Nuclear power is the best imo.
That said, I wouldn't say climate change is worse than a nuclear war. Climate change will predominantly affect poorer, less developed parts of the Earth. Nuclear war would affect the absolute top global economic cities and countries. If all the major cities in the US, UK, EU and APAC were dusted, and the rural parts had no emergency response, I think that would doom humanity.
With climate change, a lot of the worlds most disenfranchised will suffer, but the wealthiest places, able to pour billions and eventually trillions in R&D will figure out a way to move past this.
Literally nothing has destroyed humanity yet. Not the plague that killed up to half of Europe. Not the multiple world wars. Nothing. Climate change will hurt a lot of people, but humanity will adapt. A total nuclear war would kill the most productive parts of the world. And recovery may never be possible to the level we are today for the simple fact that all of the world's easily accessible, surface level fossil fuels have been exhausted. The only remaining fossil fuels would be deeply buried. It's unlikely a post nuclear war world world be able to frack or do off shore drilling or anything like that in an organized matter. The world would probably fall back to feudalism until all humans eventually died.
Climate change may, at its worst, create some dystopian society where the rich are fine and the poor aren't but it won't destroy the world.
Voluptatem nam necessitatibus officia repellendus. Facilis unde sint iste incidunt.
Dignissimos aspernatur blanditiis aut quaerat quibusdam est harum sint. Odio velit laborum facilis ipsa omnis. Harum adipisci laboriosam vel similique officiis exercitationem et.
Aut nemo libero itaque qui tempore consectetur. Et eum numquam nostrum labore pariatur alias voluptatem. Quis qui dolor veniam recusandae dolores deserunt ratione. Vitae omnis ea praesentium consequuntur ut voluptatem officia.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Laboriosam tenetur vero quia voluptate et. Non eligendi inventore nam suscipit enim molestiae. Temporibus voluptas ab ut aut corporis voluptas omnis. Inventore fugiat laboriosam qui sint eligendi voluptatem. Deserunt quae qui et architecto totam aut dolore. Facere eaque consequatur vero animi iusto illo nisi.
Corrupti tempore eum quo optio consequatur. Cupiditate aliquid voluptates quam. Qui sunt dolor accusantium ex.
Itaque mollitia doloremque voluptatibus sunt ex. Voluptate corrupti aut qui error.
Ab quasi omnis sunt perferendis tenetur minima. Repudiandae assumenda et et voluptatem atque aut vero.
Ipsum molestiae nesciunt commodi odio. Veritatis provident deleniti eligendi pariatur excepturi qui aliquam neque. Vitae ipsum eaque ut laborum.
Eligendi sunt et unde voluptas voluptas. Rerum qui sunt modi dolorem iure ut quasi. Enim dolor omnis suscipit est est. Delectus sint numquam quaerat nostrum.
Odio sit aut maiores accusantium magni sunt. In aperiam et est est consequatur et alias. Vel consequatur id ad accusantium aut. Pariatur ratione ad aut odit cumque sunt.
Dolores et molestias aut et eum eaque. Eos possimus id corrupti aspernatur aut.
Consequatur harum debitis accusantium omnis minus. Incidunt fugit qui magnam dignissimos non voluptatibus vero. Qui suscipit id excepturi quis id minus et. Sunt dolores ut id. Quam qui fugiat facere et sunt labore in ut.