That kind of thinking leads to a Logan's Run scenario. Instead, why not think of it as a part of life and work to find a solution that doesn't require the wholesale curtailment of liberties all in the name of the environment?
But fossil fuels, on the other hand, are massive stores of an atmospheric state tens or hundreds of millions of years before humans existed. CO2 levels were so high, the modern human physiology isn't well suited, and your mental state would be as if you were in a stuffy room. The sun even was slightly dimmer at the time, it was so far ago.
And secondly, the amount of oxygen humans need and CO2 we expel is about two orders of magnitude less than that of burning of fossil fuels. To make that comparison is extreme dishonesty.
Requiring companies to pay for the externalities they foist on others is not "wholesale curtailment of liberties." In fact, companies levying those externalities on us without paying for it is stealing, i.e. the wholesale curtailment of the liberty of everyone on the planet. You have it exactly backwards.
No one suggested "the wholesale curtailment of liberties". That's a strawman.
There are negative externalities associated with many activities, coal power generation is one of them. The external cost of coal power is at least more than twice the normal market price of the electricity[1]. This is the when you ignore external effects such as those that take place through water, soils, noise, or carbon dioxide and its effect on climate change.
So the actual price is actually at least three times higher. Why not just bill the polluter for the damage they do and then let the market decide which is better based on the true price?
[1] https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649
YOU are the customer if each of these externalities that you are arguing against. Are you willing to shoulder the cost?
If that means some businesses are no longer viable, they go the same way as horse buggy manufacturers. Maybe far fewer will be willing to take international holidays every year. Business will seek more sustainable ways of doing the things we enjoy.
How can a market be expected to function fairly with secret information (an externality)? It's intentionally distorted. Pollution, waste and the rest comes with negligible immediate cost, but far reaching consequences to everyone else's freedoms. If all those externalities are priced in, customers can make informed decisions.
Courts are responsible for determining fiction from reality. This is true whether we're talking about gunshot murder, or climate damage.
Whether you produce CO2 is irrelevant to truth or fiction.
>YOU are the customer if each of these externalities that you are arguing against. Are you willing to shoulder the cost?
You're also the target of the damages. If you think climate change won't absolutely skyrocket food prices, I have a bridge in the Sahara to sell you.
Our peaceful and sustainable coexistence with the rest of the world (natural or otherwise) has always required the curtailment of some liberties.
You cannot sell tubercular beef and poison the population. For the same reason, you cannot submerge island nations and cause droughts that make other regions of the world inhabitable. Deal with it.
out of curiosity, what island nations have been submerged ?
https://www.thoughtco.com/geography-and-history-of-tuvalu-14...
That's just off the top of my head
> In addition, because the sea level is rising on the islands, Tuvaluans must continually deal with their homes flooding, as well as soil salination.
> Soil salination is a problem because it is making it difficult to get clean drinking water and is harming crops as they cannot grow with the saltier water. As a result, the country is becoming more and more dependent on foreign imports.
> Tuvalu has adopted a national plan of action as the observable transformations over the last ten to fifteen years show Tuvaluans that there have been changes to the sea levels. These include sea water bubbling up through the porous coral rock to form pools at high tide and the flooding of low-lying areas including the airport during spring tides and king tides.
Re: land increase
2% is within the margin of error and experts have raised issues about the accuracy of data collected prior to 1993.
Source : http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/201...
It is also understood that growing coral reefs combat sea level rises to an extent, but that this biological mechanism is not infallible.
In any case, the rising sea levels are a matter of fact :
> The 2011 report of the Pacific Climate Change Science Program published by the Australian Government,[297] concludes: "The sea-level rise near Tuvalu measured by satellite altimeters since 1993 is about 5 mm (0.2 in) per year."
Lastly, there is no meaningful difference in this context between a completely submerged island and an island that is in the process of becoming submerged by the sea. You are arguing a moot point.
Other links were mostly "could","will","may" etc.
I mean, how is it considered rude to fart in someone's face but not rude to idle in front of their house?