[–] ilikeskittles 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

That pretty much nails it!

[–] [deleted] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] BlackSheepBrouhaha 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Right. We've had different climates in the past. We know climate is related to carbon in the atmosphere. We know we emit carbon. We don't know how much our carbon effects the climate but we do have a strong correlation. We'd have to have a year long recess to test the hypothesis, but carbon emissions only increase as the world further industrializes. We should see an acceleration in climate change as we increase emissions, but the trouble with that is that we don't want to be right if that means 100 miles from the equatorial belt and 100 feet above current sea level become uninhabitable.

Ultimately, the best predictions on climate change say that it will cost us 2-4% of global GDP in 100 years to treat this problem. The plan is to feverishly develop means to reduce carbon from the atmosphere and reduce carbon emissions so that we don't become Easter Island Planet and cause a mass extinction of all life beyond desert wildlife and creature in the twilight zone of the ocean.

The trouble with all that is that the costs are always pushed onto the middle class in obviously stupid ways. Direct taxation in France didn't make everyone feel as though they're "doing their part" it made them feel ripped off for an invisible problem which isn't even their fault. But if you tax and fine further up the production chain, those fines will ultimately be passed on to the consumer through higher prices anyway.

People are not rational. Climate change is among the most irrational topic in politics because it proves we will

A) Deny evidence if we reject the proposed solution

B) Deny contrary evidence if we fear the potential calamity

It's Pascal's Wager and an International Prisoner's Dilemma all wrapped up in one because we have to coordinate efforts with nations who are not as industrialized which only perpetuates their poverty by slowing their consumption of available energy which is the main source of wealth and productivity, more than national IQ or geography (See Arabian Oil States).

So what do we do about it?

Well, Cap and trade turns carbon emissions into a global currency. Trouble with currencies is that they're backed by militaries, so China, Russia, and the US would have carte blanche to do whatever while the rest of the world suffers loudly at committee meetings.

The Carbon Footprint trend is a good one. If we can build an objective scoring system, like nutritional facts on food, which tells you how much carbon was spend in manufacturing and transport of a good, we could turn low scores into a bragging rights competition. Lowest score wins. More information for the consumer. There's already some of this in place with water consumption and other eco-friendly products. This just extrapolation of a curve. Naturally, lower carbon products would likely cost manufacturers in book keeping and would only persuade literate conscientious people.

Ultimately, it's a tragedy of life that everything we do has unforeseen costs and side effects. For everything we do there will be externalities and knock on effects. Earth's Climate is among the most convoluted system in the universe because things as simple as wolves in Yellowstone effect forests and grasslands, river shapes, and of course, prey populations. All our biases and limitations are on full display when it comes to Climate Change, and we're not getting anywhere bitching over taxes which are just a naked grab for power which is what government does.

If you don't want taxes, you have to solve the problem yourself.

[–] Biggerpotato 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Doesnt change the fact that theres giardia in every single water source, continents of garbage floating around, acid raid worldwide, albeit mild, antibacterial and pharmaceutical shit in everything, and niggers everywhere. Were fucking shit up for sure.

[–] 86753090100 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Ask your CC believing-friends when they've ever seen a Climate expert driving a POS car and living in a shitty neighborhood.

[–] lanre 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Honestly, I do believe we're screwing up the planet, but experts of all fields have sold their souls for decades, so it's no wonder no one trusts them anymore.

[–] RockmanRaiden 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

We as in China and India. Our footprint doesn't even measure up to a volcano. The biggest issue I can see is the plastic in the ocean and events like Fukushima.

[–] lanre 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Yeah, that's another excellent point. There's no point in limiting pollution in only a few countries if the biggest offenders won't change.

[–] PoundMe2 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

US emits more pollution per capita

[–] MrBlueChip 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

I want to play devils aviate, when’s the last time volcanos have erupted? Wouldn’t us constantly doing things vs near never eruptions have a effect? (And can I get some solid links so I can use them next time I hear this?)

[–] Thereunto 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

*Climate Crisis Hoax

[–] thebearfromstartrack 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

HEY....AOC...says 12 years until a global meltdown? Well, if you HAVE a concrete predictive result like that, THEN you MUST have an equally concrete CALCULATION that ARRIVES at that figure correct?

WHAT is that calculation EXACTLY??? What are the EXACT inputs (factors, parameters, CONSTANTS, variables)???

[–] sivsta 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

This goes for a lot of medical scientific studies. They are unable to replicate half of them

[–] Newmemba 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

that was funny

load more comments ▼ (4 remaining)