"A lot" maybe, but I suspect the majority would do the opposite and deny/understate the problem.
Also the parent comment is more about risk management. The sensible thing to do in the absence of information is precisely to imagine the worst outcomes and act with them in mind. The precautionary principle is a statutory requirement in law in some jurisdictions to help avoid the worst outcomes.
> I suspect the majority would do the opposite and deny/understate the problem.
I don't know. I've seen so much fear-mongering in my life. We're all going to die from zika, n1h1, ebola, killer bees, aids, mrsa, terrorists, and so on. In each case, there's something to be afraid of, and you might actually know someone who died in one those ways, but the media and the lay people blow it way out of proportion. The people I've know who died have been from drugs, suicide, heart failure, stroke, and car accidents.
> The sensible thing to do in the absence of information is precisely to imagine the worst outcomes and act with them in mind.
I can't accept that as sensible. It's easy to contrive unacceptable courses of action by applying that rule: "The police don't know who the murderers are, so they lock up everyone to avoid the worst outcome." "The doctor isn't sure how bad the infection is, so we amputate all the limbs just in case."
America has an apocalyptical culture. Probably from the cultural imprint of our end times themed christianity during the early years. That whole book of revelations madness. (The Puritans who first colonized the New World were fruitcakes, even back then.)
But we did come very close to snuffing ourselves with nukes a few times.
And ever since I started paying attention to ecological collapse, mid 1980s, pretty much all the predictions have come true. (The only confusing bit there is we've also had amazing technical progress, masking the underlying destruction.)
I so hope that I'm just being an alarmist and it's all going to work out. I have kids, and hopefully grandkids one day. Yet I remain concerned.
Very often the reason we don't die from these things is because we take precaution. Imagine we had done nothing against ebola or aids, we'd have millions of deaths by now. (In the case of aids, not all places were so lucky [0].)
Same for the ozone hole, or dying trees from acid rain. When the source of the problem is identified, we can fix it, and that's the case for greenhouse-gas-caused climate change.
Risk management has a cost. The question is what is the price? What are you willing to pay for being "safe". What are you willing to risk?
Are future generations worth more than current? Should we militarily prohibit poor countries from using fossil fuels which they use to better their lives?
You can say worst outcomes with other things too, meteor, nuclear war, pandemic, terrorism, etc. you always have to find a balance.
With the climate change debate, this balance is completely ignored and people are seriously suggesting making fundamental changes to society without having any ability to know what the consequences of those will be.
Climate catastrophism is itself a potential danger.
Wind and solar constitute less than 1% of world energy consumption and doesn't have all the other properties and uses that makes oil such a fundamental and necessary ingredient for modern living. Hopefully overtime we will find something that's better, for now it's hard to find as amazing and flexible a resource as oil.
I like this particular comment because you've stated what you're for, versus what you're against.
There is a lot of daylight between our respective positions. I don't agree with most of your assumptions, or statements of fact. So of course I don't agree with your conclusions. Alas, our realities are so far apart, there's zero profit in trying to find common ground.
I do have a request, a suggestion: Make some predictions. Set some arbitrary horizons. Guess what you think will happen. Write it down. (No need to share with me.)
I used to be very bullish on both algae for biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol. Much disappointment. As a layperson, I don't know enough to know the why nots and what ifs. Or if those two techs can ever be viable.
Likewise, I totally didn't foresee solar doubling every 30 months. Nor the rise of the wind juggernaut.
I was wrong. I usually am. So with new data, I reluctantly have updated my worldview.
I've made several predictions in this thread and I have been making others through the years I have a pretty good intuition about what to worry about and what to now, historically.
I'm from Denmark originally I grew up with wind and understand the pros and cons pretty well and I know the reality of wind and solar which isn't what you seem to think it is.
Furthermore, now I am investing in interesting energy companies doing anything substantial and I can just tell you that it's a much harder problem than most thing and is solved by neither sun nor wind.
I am wrong about a lot of things and I will change my position when I am, however, this is not an area I am wrong about but an area I predict you will realize in 10 years from now that I was right about.
This is why I say there is no scientifically demonstrated consequence of climate change we can't deal with and I have yet to hear anyone able to refute that. Climate catastrophism is going to be a joke a decade from now and we won't be leaving oil anytime soon, it's simply too valuable for human life and the ability to live with nature.
Furthermore, I seem to be one of the few people who actually care about the only thing that matters in the context of this discussion which is how much do humans affect the climate. What's the number? Where is scientifically demonstrated proof?
If you can give me that and show me it's high then you have convinced me. Until you do that then you are asking me to act on something there is no scientific evidence for.
Anyway, thank you for at least being civil about it and not (I assume) downvote me like more or less anyone do on anyone who dares say anything that isn't part of the normal spiel.
> Nuclear would probably win out, then oil and coal
Possibly, but it doesn't seem likely. In most parts of the US, it's cheaper to build new solar or wind than any of the fossil fuels. In some areas, I've read that it's cheaper to build new solar or wind than to run existing fossil plants. I don't know what the rest of the world looks like though.
No, it's not cheaper as you have to factor in the backup energy you have to build to support when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining.
I would urge you, if you are really interested in the truth and a rational position on this, to go and do the research. |
I did which is why I am very very aware of the difference between speculation and demonstration and how much of the claims of wind and solars ability to power most of the worlds energy needs are a completete utopia.
Again less than 1% of the world's energy is the consumption of solar and wind, and that's with all the political tailwind it has gotten.
A lot of the cost of building nuclear is extreme bureaucracy and the kind of security metrics are being asked, yet it's still much better than solar and wind in the long run, much safer, more stable, cleaner, scalable and cheaper.
So yeah lets remove the subsidies. Wind and solar will fall apart.
Also the parent comment is more about risk management. The sensible thing to do in the absence of information is precisely to imagine the worst outcomes and act with them in mind. The precautionary principle is a statutory requirement in law in some jurisdictions to help avoid the worst outcomes.