Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bossnass
The position as I understood it is: "Is GCC is going to occur withan effect on global economy/life as we know it" and "we try to make things better or don't"
GCC doesn't happen - we try to stop it - waste of money=depression
GCC happens - we try to stop it - money well spent, happy
and GCC doesn't happen, we don't try - no waste of money, happy
GCC happen, we don't try - apocalyptic reprecussions
I didn't interpret it as depression with costs, but depression with unnecessary costs. If money is wasted trying to stop something that isn't happening (or that we can't stop) then we could get a depression, but if the money is spent and GCC is 'stopped' (or we create an ecomony prepared for the future climate) then we are less likely to get a depression.
Exactly the point- the cause is not material; climate change will happen or it won't. Rational people will accept that a warming trend has been recently observed. Climate change takes place.
I'm not interested in this discussion becoming a debate on if or if not it is taking place and if or if not human activity is accelerating the (natural geological timeline scale) climate change.
The argument put forth in the video is that the risk of not taking action is extraordinary. Its a global prisoner's dilemma.
|
Yes. I see the mistake I made.
But another issue is the worst case scenario where we take no action. I guess people can debate what those consequences would be. We already experience many of the things he describes. And with global climate change and no action, he assumes everyone is harmed and the net is negative. Perhaps some people benefit. Certainly people currently owning ocean front property may be flooded out, but what about the people currently in higher elevations and in colder climates? Do they benefit? Perhaps some areas may experience more drought, but other areas will have more access to water. Perhaps we can't grow food in some places but will be able to grow food in other places. After all isn't change a constant?