|
|
|
|
|
|
by Mirioron
2378 days ago
|
|
|
The likely objection to your argument is that people don't really think there's much of a difference whether we start action today or in 5 years. Yes, it will be more difficult, but actually taking the right steps is probably more important. There's a million ways how some bad steps being taken could end up in a catastrophe. Look at the situation with the Amazon and how aggressive some countries are against the Brazilian government. Some countries (France) are even bypassing the government to deal with local authorities. Situations like that can very quickly spiral out of control. They might make people be even less accepting of doing something about climate change and they can even spark political instability, which very well can lead to hot conflicts. The climate situation is going to progressively get worse. It will even accelerate the rate at which it gets worse, but it's not going to explode like a bomb. Political situations can explode like that and when that happens, then nobody will care about climate change. We can't afford not to be moderate on an issue like this. You can't solve climate change at once. It'll take sustained effort and a lot of time. You can't build it on shaky ground. >hacker news is swarming with climate change denalists downvoters. This type of attitude is a huge problem for people advocating for changes to be made due to climate change. You're asking for a lot of people's lives to become more difficult, but when they question or disagree on almost any point they are labelled evil and stupid. |
|
|
Exactly. This is true of most policy disagreements. Just because you think my plan won't do what I propose it will do doesn't mean you're stupid and evil, even if some other people are opposing it because they are stupid and evil.