You think preventing climate change is more expensive than not preventing climate change?
I don’t think that and I didn’t say or imply that. No one seems to be able to comprehend the “what if it’s all a hoax” in the comic in question. In such a case, there is no climate change, and thus no associated costs.
the most effective first step for individuals who want to prevent climate change is: Reduce. And that costs nothing at all.
Except it does. When you don’t buy something, someone is not selling something. And there is likely something that you want to sell also, which others may not buy. That sort of thing applied at the level it would take to stop climate change would stop our entire economy dead in it’s tracks.
You think consuming less would stop the economy dead in it’s tracks. And … Is that a bad thing? As we know, “economy” means “rich people’s yachts”.
And just as obviously, reducing consumption is not binary. There’s no way to go to zero, nor would anyone seriously propose it. But anyway, with an increasing population and limited global resources, it’s inevitable that people will have to reduce at some point, so the disaster you hypothesize would strike us anyway. And in that case, gradual change now is better than catastrophic change later.
I don’t think that and I didn’t say or imply that. No one seems to be able to comprehend the “what if it’s all a hoax” in the comic in question. In such a case, there is no climate change, and thus no associated costs.
Except it does. When you don’t buy something, someone is not selling something. And there is likely something that you want to sell also, which others may not buy. That sort of thing applied at the level it would take to stop climate change would stop our entire economy dead in it’s tracks.
Removed by mod
Huh? That doesn’t remotely resemble anything I said.
Removed by mod
😂 okay bud
Removed by mod
You think consuming less would stop the economy dead in it’s tracks. And … Is that a bad thing? As we know, “economy” means “rich people’s yachts”.
And just as obviously, reducing consumption is not binary. There’s no way to go to zero, nor would anyone seriously propose it. But anyway, with an increasing population and limited global resources, it’s inevitable that people will have to reduce at some point, so the disaster you hypothesize would strike us anyway. And in that case, gradual change now is better than catastrophic change later.
That’s not what I said. We’re not talking about reusing a few plastic bags here. We’re talking about reversing global warming.
Reusing? I thought we were talking about reducing. And I don’t think anyone is talking about reversing.