If there is one lesson we must learn from this covid ordeal of the past 2 years is that overreacting to a perceived risk generated way more harm than good.
For the climate issue, it will be the same if we let our emotions lead our decision-making process.
That would certainly take more than a short post to unpack and I don't see myself as a climate expert in any way but a good starting point if you want to understand where I sit would be the following:
A) My position is that climate change or global warming is a problem but not the end of the world. I share the moderate positions of environmentalists such as Michael Shellenberger and Bjorn Lomborg who, while acknowledging climate change is an issue, are proposing the world should remained focused in pursuing development which will be the stepping stone to bring actual alternatives and stable replacements to fossil fuels. In addition, policy makers and activists alike tend to underestimate our capacity to adapt.
B) Much like the computer models that predicted millions of deaths within weeks from covid back in Feb-March 2020 that triggered the lockdowns across the globe (a policy that is now being questioned by the way), most computer models predicting the evolution of temperature for the last 25-30 years have been wrong and overestimated the impact of CO2.
C) If we were really serious about reducing CO2 emissions, we would not be closing nuclear plants in Germany and California. We would accelerate the transition from coal generation plant to natural gaz among other things. Most western countries have ideologically driven policies where the ends justify the means. Even if it means sacrificing stability in the electrical grid for example.
D) Many environmental activists these days have an anti-human attitude and are almost willing to sacrifice part of the human race if it means saving (sic) planet earth. In addition, they even disregard any actual data or facts that contradicts their claims. (Ex: Climate related deaths have plummeted by more than 90% in the last century, forest fire acreage burned area has decrease in the last 100 years and recent increases could have been prevented if we kept forest management active, severe hurricane activity in North America has not increased but only the damage value which is mostly explained by population increase in costal areas in the last 50-60 years, cold related deaths are much higher than heat related deaths, etc, etc, etc....)
In short, a lot has been done already and more will be done in the coming decades to improve the quality of our surrounding environment. Human nature and psychology is driven by positive motivation for the future, not by exposing a bleak, catastrophic vision of the years ahead that will only impede on people's capacity to drive real changes.
It is indeed a very complex issue and a lot of things are still uncertain. Whatever may actually happen, I think it is important that we remain open-minded and keep looking at the facts (and our best, ever-improving/changing approximations of what could happen) as they currently are (and they are not very good but definitely not set in stone) while we do what we can to avert the worst.
Of equal importance is that we make sure that we do not ignore the impact of the decisions we make on other people. For example, by banning indigenous tribes who have been living in and off a forest for generations from hunting or chopping trees because the wood is now 'protected', or by turning a blind eye to systematic problems that affect everyday people. There is no use trying to 'save the world' if in the process you are sacrificing the very things that made the world worth saving in the first place. That is why I decided to go to this conference, to see what 'the environmental movement' is doing to take into account the viewpoints and perspectives of other groups, whose members often come from very different segments of society.
One thing that really stuck by me from the Covid pandemic was seeing how many people were forced to choose between at some point getting infected and maybe dying & not going to work and therefore not have any food or home anymore. How can you then expect people to 'do the right thing', if doing that is not really an option. If we want to seriously change our society for the better and curb not only emissions but the collapsing ecosystems, pollution, and so forth, these factors need to be taken into account when making decisions and implementing policies, otherwise the 'solution' might only make things worse.
I like the way you captured your thoughts in the following sentence:
"There is no use trying to 'save the world' if in the process you are sacrificing the very things that made the world worth saving in the first place."
Enjoyed having this exchange with you, thanks again.
If there is one lesson we must learn from this covid ordeal of the past 2 years is that overreacting to a perceived risk generated way more harm than good.
For the climate issue, it will be the same if we let our emotions lead our decision-making process.
Could you elaborate? Would be interested in better understanding what you mean.
That would certainly take more than a short post to unpack and I don't see myself as a climate expert in any way but a good starting point if you want to understand where I sit would be the following:
A) My position is that climate change or global warming is a problem but not the end of the world. I share the moderate positions of environmentalists such as Michael Shellenberger and Bjorn Lomborg who, while acknowledging climate change is an issue, are proposing the world should remained focused in pursuing development which will be the stepping stone to bring actual alternatives and stable replacements to fossil fuels. In addition, policy makers and activists alike tend to underestimate our capacity to adapt.
B) Much like the computer models that predicted millions of deaths within weeks from covid back in Feb-March 2020 that triggered the lockdowns across the globe (a policy that is now being questioned by the way), most computer models predicting the evolution of temperature for the last 25-30 years have been wrong and overestimated the impact of CO2.
C) If we were really serious about reducing CO2 emissions, we would not be closing nuclear plants in Germany and California. We would accelerate the transition from coal generation plant to natural gaz among other things. Most western countries have ideologically driven policies where the ends justify the means. Even if it means sacrificing stability in the electrical grid for example.
D) Many environmental activists these days have an anti-human attitude and are almost willing to sacrifice part of the human race if it means saving (sic) planet earth. In addition, they even disregard any actual data or facts that contradicts their claims. (Ex: Climate related deaths have plummeted by more than 90% in the last century, forest fire acreage burned area has decrease in the last 100 years and recent increases could have been prevented if we kept forest management active, severe hurricane activity in North America has not increased but only the damage value which is mostly explained by population increase in costal areas in the last 50-60 years, cold related deaths are much higher than heat related deaths, etc, etc, etc....)
In short, a lot has been done already and more will be done in the coming decades to improve the quality of our surrounding environment. Human nature and psychology is driven by positive motivation for the future, not by exposing a bleak, catastrophic vision of the years ahead that will only impede on people's capacity to drive real changes.
Thank you for your explanation.
It is indeed a very complex issue and a lot of things are still uncertain. Whatever may actually happen, I think it is important that we remain open-minded and keep looking at the facts (and our best, ever-improving/changing approximations of what could happen) as they currently are (and they are not very good but definitely not set in stone) while we do what we can to avert the worst.
Of equal importance is that we make sure that we do not ignore the impact of the decisions we make on other people. For example, by banning indigenous tribes who have been living in and off a forest for generations from hunting or chopping trees because the wood is now 'protected', or by turning a blind eye to systematic problems that affect everyday people. There is no use trying to 'save the world' if in the process you are sacrificing the very things that made the world worth saving in the first place. That is why I decided to go to this conference, to see what 'the environmental movement' is doing to take into account the viewpoints and perspectives of other groups, whose members often come from very different segments of society.
One thing that really stuck by me from the Covid pandemic was seeing how many people were forced to choose between at some point getting infected and maybe dying & not going to work and therefore not have any food or home anymore. How can you then expect people to 'do the right thing', if doing that is not really an option. If we want to seriously change our society for the better and curb not only emissions but the collapsing ecosystems, pollution, and so forth, these factors need to be taken into account when making decisions and implementing policies, otherwise the 'solution' might only make things worse.
I like the way you captured your thoughts in the following sentence:
"There is no use trying to 'save the world' if in the process you are sacrificing the very things that made the world worth saving in the first place."
Enjoyed having this exchange with you, thanks again.