>But there's no way, all things considered, it's a net benefit overall.
This seems like a very dogmatic statement to make. Especially when weighed with benefits of cheap energy and economic growth. A wealthier world can build the infrastructure to handle potentially negative effects of climate change.
The more extreme environmentalists and marxists say we should be engaging in degrowth, which would just result in a kind of feudal and static society, even more vulnerable to climate change. It should also be noted that the Little Ice Age in Europe was associated with scarcity and famine, while the Roman Warm Period was associated with golden ages of several civilizations across the world.
>> But there's no way, all things considered, it's a net benefit overall.
> This seems like a very dogmatic statement to make
Do you think climate change could have a net benefit? I don't think that thinking that's false is dogmatic.
It's too late for "we'll manage". Time to go for "We need to manage now" because...
> A wealthier world can build the infrastructure to handle potentially negative effects of climate change.
... has not happened. The wealthy civilization needs to want it and make it a priority now.
Anyway, I'm replying to someone who speaks about potentially negative effects of climate change. Wake up! It's not "potentially" anymore, it's already started!
"Technology will save us" is a tired trope at this point.
I personally do think the net benefit is positive, for the biosphere, not necessarily for human beings, which is where our action comes in. We can benefit if we choose to benefit.
A wealthier world building the infrastructure to handle the negative effects does not look how you think it does. It doesn't look like a unified concerted effort to hold back the tide in a figurative sense. It looks like communities that live on shorelines building levees, to hold back the tide in a literal sense. What you want and what need to be done are not the same things. You can't say we have failed just because the solution isn't what you wish it were. The world is changing and people will manage.
Exactly to your point about wealthy civilizations needing to want to use their excesses for good... we had an agricultural revolution in the 70s and rather than feed the starving we just continued same old. Now we're losing topsoil, fertilizers derived from fossil fuels, stable climates to grow crops, pest/weather resistance, and nutrition. And we 4Xed the global population in the meantime.
This seems like a very dogmatic statement to make. Especially when weighed with benefits of cheap energy and economic growth. A wealthier world can build the infrastructure to handle potentially negative effects of climate change.
The more extreme environmentalists and marxists say we should be engaging in degrowth, which would just result in a kind of feudal and static society, even more vulnerable to climate change. It should also be noted that the Little Ice Age in Europe was associated with scarcity and famine, while the Roman Warm Period was associated with golden ages of several civilizations across the world.