[bobbydroptables]

>We cannot justify most of the things we're currently doing on that basis.

Exactly my point. Why do you think we need to have a higher justification for good ideas (engaging in sustainable behavior) than for bad ideas (engaging in unsustainable behavior)?

>We apparently don't agree on what "reality" actually is, at least with respect to how much of an emergency CO2 emissions are. You think they're a dire emergency.

>Which is one of the key points the article we are discussing in this thread is making.

And the point you're still missing is that not doing anything to stop risky behavior is making an assumption that it is safe to continue the risky behavior. That assumption is not grounded in anything.

[pdonis]

> Why do you think we need to have a higher justification for good ideas (engaging in sustainable behavior) than for bad ideas (engaging in unsustainable behavior)?

You're misstating the alternatives. We're talking about public policy. The alternatives for public policy are "don't dictate what everyone must do in area X" or "dictate what everyone must do in area X". The former does not need a "higher justification". The latter does.

[bobbydroptables]

>You're misstating the alternatives.

No.

>We're talking about public policy.

Yes.

>The alternatives for public policy are "don't dictate what everyone must do in area X" or "dictate what everyone must do in area X".

The world is not this simple. Regardless, we must dictate that people cannot inflict externalities on third parties without compensation.

>The former does not need a "higher justification". The latter does.

Where are you getting this idea? You're just stating a conclusion without any support. I can do that too:

You are wrong, I am right. You need to scientifically justify acts that have harmful externalities. You do not need to justify harmful acts that restrict harmful externalities.

Wow, this is easy! I should have been arguing like this all along!