Hacker News Reader

Comment by temp1831 | Hacker News Reader

Consider these 2 possible opinions of folks who don't care too much about fighting climate change:

1. Climate change is an unsolvable problem, requiring coordination on a massive scale by billions of actors who have been shown to defect whenever given the chance. Any plan we are likely to implement is unlikely to succeed. Humans overall are adaptive, adrobust to change, and when the changes caused by climate change happen, we may suffer a bit, but it will not be immense suffering.

2. Climate change isn't real.

Often when I've tried to argue position 1, which I actually believe, my friends are extremely frustrated and essentially think I'm trying to argue for position 2. Left-leaning folks are too idealistic to understand that position 1 is an entirely internally-consistent position.

View on HN

What does "arguing position 1" amount to, though? Your phrasing here seems to be saying that you're throwing up your hands and giving up. But that's not an "argument".

My guess is that you're actually arguing for inaction, that you're opposed to regulation, and that you're taking your stand with all the people with position 2. If so... why are you surprised to be forced to defend their wrongheadedness?

I argue from position 1 that we should be looking for the next breakthrough, CO2-emission-free power source. I'm extremely grateful that some people are. Wind and solar are highly inefficient, expensive and difficult to scale[1] and are very unlikely to be an effective solution long-term. Nuclear power sources have great potential among technologies we have access to today and while there are real, technical drawbacks (setup cost, security, waste) there are ongoing, significant research projects in each area[2]. Beyond nuclear, the seeming holy-grail would be to find a CO2-emission-free power source that is 10-100x more effective at the same or lower cost. And why can't we? Our ability to imagine what is possible in the future has been shown time and again to be very limited, in general.

Arguing position 1 amounts to taking an interest in and investing in efforts that will allow the world to progress along its current trajectory without CO2-emitting power sources.

"... why are you surprised to be forced to defend their wrongheadedness?" - I'm not... I just avoid having conversations with folks that would jump to this conclusion without hearing my point of view.

[1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/08... [2]http://energy.mit.edu/news/mit-releases-interdisciplinary-st...

> I argue from position 1 that we should be looking for the next breakthrough, CO2-emission-free power source.

We already have one: nuclear.

> What does "arguing position 1" amount to, though?

Saying that we should adapt to climate change, instead of taking actions trying to stop it that are doomed to failure.

Humans have already adapted in the past to bigger changes. We can do it again.

You nailed it, many of us are "1" or "1"-adjacent.

Consider this... if you don't think The West should be fighting a massive trade-war against India/China around climate change, if your solution to a GLOBAL problem is a NATIONAL solution, then you're just spinning wheels. Trump's tariffs are ironically the greenest policy choice he could possibly be making and he's not exactly getting praise for it.

EDIT: Thus, I think the most likely "solution" to climate change is for humans to adapt or die. The most likely scenario in which we adapt best is the one in which our economies and technology grow the fastest, such that massive-scale geo-engineering becomes possible, so I support those economic growth policies instead, because they don't suffer from prisoner's dilemma defection. This happens to look exactly like climate change denial to leftists.

EDIT EDIT: I don’t care about karma but my post will be “dead” soon, along with many other people who dared to share the same position (and the chilling effect on people who choose not to even speak up). So I ask how I can communicate my position more constructively? Maybe my opinion is just wrong, but I’d like to be convinced by someone who is willing to dialogue with a potential ally.

In point 1, I think it's worth pointing out that there likely will be immense suffering, it will just not likely be by those who cause/impact the problem. My grandchildren will lose their beach house. But they'll have robots build them a new one. A few dozens extra million people in poor areas will die of drought induced starvation. And on net, people won't care.

I'm not saying this is morally wrong I'm just saying we should acknowledge it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com