View Single Post
Old 10-24-2018, 04:58 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 778
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
This is the core of the problem, but as a bit of an aside, the second part of point (A) that I bolded is rather hyperbolic and is part of the exaggerated argument against mitigation advanced by the denialists. The economic impacts are often overrated and are sometimes neutral or even positive, especially when compared with the inevitable economic costs of losses from severe weather and regional climate changes. We have to be careful not to promulgate the hype that "environmentalists want us all to go back to primitive times and dispense with all modern conveniences". No, we don't. We just don't want to trash the only planet we have.

Many of the necessary measures and adaptations are inevitable as just general sound environmental policy regardless of climate change. It's no great sacrifice for me that all the coal plants around here have been demolished and the majority of electric power is nuclear and hydro, with increasing amounts coming from wind and solar, and it makes the air cleaner and literally prevents cardiopulmonary diseases and premature deaths. It's hardly any sacrifice to me that my new car gets great gas mileage. Recycling paper, plastics and glass is something I have to consciously do but it's a learned habit with minimal inconvenience and great long-term benefits for everyone. There are some economic costs to emissions mitigation and general environmental stewardship but there's no awful lifestyle impact if we approach these things intelligently, and the payoffs are vitally important.
Absolutely correct, and thanks for explaining it better than I could have. I should have emphasized that these arguments were simplified and framed the way deniers favor.
I'm not expecting any surprises.