Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86
"if you do not accept these then I suggest you not go sailing for fear of falling over the edge of the world:"
That seems like attacking the person holding the idea more than the idea itself.
|
If you believe in fantasies or demonstrably false convictions in the face of overwhelming evidence then what else can I say?
Quote:
|
Also, good job moving the goalposts on a better question. You stated its a truism that dealing with it now is cheaper than latter. You can't prove that, it's certainly not a truism. I'm not saying acting now is a bad idea, I'm saying your post was hyperbole.
|
That point is almost universally accepted in the field of climate change policy. I'm not going to dig up the hundreds of different articles, impact analyses, cost benefit analyses that waiting until the world warms to 4 degrees and then geoengineering/adapting our way out that situation is more expensive. Because it makes intuitive sense.
The cost of paying say 20% more (at most) for your energy is much much lower than building adaptation infrastructure, dealing with the significant economic impacts to sectors dependent on the current climate systems, dealing with the unknowns of warming, dealing with the risks and then dealing with the unintended consequences of geoengineering. And further, there's just somethings geoengineering can't cure like, oh I dont' know, ocean acidification?
What are the costs of the ocean losing say 50% of its net primary productivity? How do you even start quantifying that?
My point is so well supported that it is a truism. You can choose to stick your fingers in your ears but you could also take my word for it.
Quote:
|
That's the biggest reason reasonable people dislike global warming advocates. They're often a lot like SebC on a crusade for no suburbs.
|
Sorry for trying to get you to care about a problem that will affect you significantly.