Very good points here “ok, so targets are arbitrary…so what, what’s your target that’s better? What actual trade-offs are you willing to make to make the future more livable?”
Reposted from
David Roberts
Many annoying things about this post from @mattyglesias.bsky.social, but to confine myself to one: "climate change will not wipe out humanity" is not a sufficient take on climate damages. Nothing of particular substance follows from that. It doesn't settle any argument.
Comments
Nuclear💞Authoritarians
We have to make systems that appeal to this else we upset the populace which backlashes.
Wow, Matty really Columbo’d that one, genius.
There's no way people are going to make trade-offs for the future. They don't make non-trade offs for now.
We're not wasting our time debating him. This is a post integrity world
The Brits complained that the Huns were using machine guns in WWI against their "undefeated" cavalry and thats not fair or honorable. Yet, the horses were still dead
Good job Hank
Climate Change fighting is like a band aid. The sooner you rip it off the happier people will be. The longer you draw out closing the mines the worse it will be
The Postdam Institute in Germany has done extensive research. The numbers aren't just arbitrary here
Because not every decision making process is purely rational, trying for the optimized result is often a sunk cost.
Simon explores the concept in “Administrative Behavior.”
Still time to order:
#cybermonday #politics
"Millions, including the wealthy, have died and been adversely affected economically by climate change for the past several decades."
"I'mma pretend I didn't see that."
https://bsky.app/profile/mattyglesias.bsky.social/post/3lcdsrm62lk2c
2. It matters what "some" of humanity means. Funding the SDG health goals is estimated to save 100 million lives for 400b USD a year, can climate mitigation compete? https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X%2817%2930263-2/fulltext
https://x.com/hankgreen/status/776549710584655878
It's somewhat true. A lot of people were in fact doing it. I only give people credit for opposing the Iraq War if they're on record doing so in 2003.
Would it make sense to include politicians, or should that be a separate list?
It really was a lot of people taken in. I wouldn't consider it lifetime disqualifying - but definitely think twice.
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:gej3g2ezovzt4hgmkeinz4cg/lists/3lb3hnp67i62n
You don't need to block or even mute, but it might be a handy reference
Good practice to for him to link the article too, instead of having to dig to discover that it wasn't a good summary.
https://www.slowboring.com/p/we-need-reality-based-energy-policy
It's disingenuousness on top of disingenuousness. Will we miss anything if we totally ignore Matt?
People like you don't get far on political advocacy when you think this type of pressuring works instead of real solutions.
Emissions trading is rife with fraud due to how hard it is to measure.
Renewables like solar and wind are not true answers to the issue.
And just vague scientific advancements.
The only true answer for the backbone of our power grid is nuclear which has the capability to ramp up and down based on demand and fluctuations with other renewables.
I'll look into those supplements after work to see theimpact
You need systems of change that make it easier for people for them to adopt it.
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-national-summary#:~:text=After%202005%2C%20the%20EPA%20methodology%20for%20lead,by%2030%20percent%20from%202008%20to%202017
The question is, how much suffering will we inflict on our descendants?