Worst case if skepticism is wrong; civilization collapses as mass extinction creates scarcity and thus violence.
Worst case if skepticism is wrong; civilization collapses as mass extinction creates scarcity and thus violence.
We are right about climate change. Full stop. People who consider that not to be the case are lacking in information, because there are literally dozens of independent lines of evidence that back the conclusion and that have been used to model the current state of the climate.
There is no skepticism in denying the current state of climate science.
The top-down structures are in place anyway because there's a ton of other political forces at play. Climate change policies introduce the same degree of cooperation as most international agreements on a myriad of things do already.
It is an intellectually dishonest point, focusing on this extremely narrow aspect of policy while disregarding the last 30 years of global cooperation frameworks.
I think the largest divide is man-made climate change vs not. I agree the climate is changing. I'm not yet convinced we're causing it or we can do anything about it.
1) It's getting warmer because of higher concentrations of greenhouse gasses (primarily CO2) in the atmosphere.
2) Humans are releasing large amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels and other industrial processes.
It's a pretty straightforward line of reasoning.
The "international agreements" we have in place are not strong enough to address climate change. Not even close. To hit 1.5C we have to have zero net CO2 emissions by the middle of the century: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-the-ipcc-1-5c-repor.... But under current projections, CO2 emissions will keep going up until the middle of the century: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26252. (China has added more than an entire US worth of CO2 output in the last decade. If India gets up to Chinese levels, much less Western levels, that will add another US or more. The population of africa is expected to double by 2050.)
I am doubtful there is any way to hit any of the IPCC targets, period, but certainly not within any of the international frameworks we have today. Any supra-national political structure capable of actually addressing climate change would be massively more invasive than anything we have today.
Further, I’d actually argue that most individual autonomy is stripped at the local level. You’re homeowners association can do more to rob you of individual liberty as the UN. In fact, I’d argue the global institutions, in some meaningful ways, have been the biggest drivers of restoring individual liberty. You might not feel it if you live in a market driven democracy; but the facts of development over the last 80 years, the increase liberty globally speak for themselves.
Wrong for two reasons.
1) Market forces will not address things like climate change without government intervention to force externalities to be internalized. For many reasons that have nothing to do with "corruption," governments are disincentivized to force perfect internalization of externalities. In places like China, the government is massively subsidizing infrastructure development (and creating a large resulting carbon impact). In places like the U.S., keeping energy artificially cheap is a key way to keep voters happy.
2) Even if policies were imposed to force externalities to be internalized, there is no reason to believe that market forces will reach an equilibrium on the very short time scales (one or two decades) that we're talking about.
> You might not feel it if you live in a market driven democracy;
To the contrary, I do. But folks talking about a "Green New Deal" that make me nervous about whether I'll continue to live in a market driven democracy.
I just think we have reached a critical mass of support with most people wanting solutions that if the cynical manipulation of the argument and disingenuous “debate” that is only trying to cast doubt to keep the oil money flowing were to stop the market would act fast.