Oddbean new post about login | logout Josef, thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts and concerns regarding this truly complex issue. I’m not a climate scientist myself and agree 100% with the statement that earths climate is way to complex to pinpoint it to one variable. I would also agree with the incentive structure in current academia to be disincentivizing open ended research. However I can’t ignore that my personal choices and actions have consequences. Consequences that may be more or less harmful to my fellow citizens of the earth and the environment around me. I personally try to optimize my lifestyle to avoid as much harm as possible. Others might not share these values or might refuse to be aware of the consequences of their actions, but that’s not of my business. I might argue that people who live in a harmful way towards their fellow citizens and environment are violating the NAP (non aggression principle) but usually even that is causing resentment because everyone thinks they are doing their best already. We’re not. There is room to grow, always.
Appreciate your reply and I understand where you‘re coming from. With regards to the NAP, the question which needs to be asked is what is actually harmful. If we e.g. look at car traffic, pollution other than CO2 like nitric oxide or particulate matter are very harmful to others today and may be more harmful than CO2 might ever become. Even electric cars do not resolve this as components like tyres or breaks cause this kind of air pollution as well. Nevertheless, if we compare car traffic today with 50 years ago, the unhealthy pollution declined massively. This is because humans are innovative and came up with solutions like catalysts. The same can be true for climate related issues. Just think for example of rising sea levels. Did you know that 20% of the Netherlands is land reclaimed from the sea? Humans are really great at shaping their environment and will continue to strive even with rising sea levels. I think the main reason why more and more people reject the climate debate is its unbalanced approach to environmental issues (focus on CO2 only) and the rejection of innovation as a means to mitigate climate risks.
I somewhat agree. Only because people are innovative, which we definitely are, even more so under a sound money standard, I believe we should avoid risks at all costs. People overestimate their ability to innovate. There won’t be an innovation to a 40m sea level rise within 200 years. The Netherlands will just be gone. Yes, solutions are there, bike infrastructure is a huge innovation over a car centric city, providing mental and physical health benefits for it’s citizens. Plant based alternatives to meat have had huge leaps in popularity. The only thing that doesn’t want to really change is the people who have lived their whole life destroying the planet and not feeling bad about it.
See, that‘s where we have a different opinion. I think it‘s essential for human growth to take risks. The only reason we can have such comfortable lives today is that a lot of people took a lot of risk. Otherwise humans would still live in a cave somewhere in Central Africa. As regards your sea level worries, I need to call BS. Even the high estimate of the IPCC for „business as usual policy“ is just a 1.1m sea level rise until 2100. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_09.pdf Also, with regards to plant-based alternatives to meat, imo that goes against the NAP. Highly processed foods consisting of mainly seed oils and soy/beans are not a balanced or healthy diet. They lack essential vitamins and contain high doses of inflammable compounds like linoleic acid. Plus, vast amounts of land would be unused if we stop cattle farming as soils are often not accesible (mountains), nutrient-dense (need for fertilizer) or warm enough to use for other agricultural products.