[rsj_hn]

With this type of fear mongering, more people will die from the fight against climate change than climate change itself. For example, fertilizer is made from fossil fuels, so attempts to raise the price of fossil fuels or prevent companies from obtaining these fuels results in starvation. Similarly raising the price of things like home heating oil or gasoline will devastate poor nations. Madagascar had a famine because it wasn't able to afford fertilizer due to the twin effects of loss of revenue from covid lockdowns and an increase in fertilizer prices.

Trying to move away from fossil fuels is an extremely delicate operation that requires nuance and patience. It also requires having something to replace fossil fuels that is as cheap otherwise poor nations wont be able to afford it. This means purely relying on market solutions to increase prices and let replacements bubble from the market is a recipe for disaster in the developing world.

[js8]

"Trying to move away from fossil fuels is an extremely delicate operation that requires nuance and patience."

The problem is nature around us is losing this patience. Good luck convincing it!

But I agree just market solutions (carbon pricing) won't cut it, although for the opposite reason - they are acting too slowly.

[rsj_hn]

Nature is not a person that has emotions and will be fine with any amount of carbon -- 200 million years ago there were no icecaps and it was a flourishing time for life, with 2000 ppm carbon in the air as well as huge amounts of other greenhouse gases and it led to an explosion of life.

We are talking about adopting policies that promote human flourishing, and I guarantee you that rising fertilizer prices and fuel prices will kill many more people than rising sea levels. It's just that the people who die of rising fertilizer prices live in Africa and India, not NYC, LA, or Miami.

[js8]

"Nature is not a person that has emotions"

Obviously, it was a metaphor.

"200 million years ago there were no icecaps and it was a flourishing time for life, with 2000 ppm carbon in the air as well as huge amounts of other greenhouse gases and it led to an explosion of life"

Yes, but the life was adapted to it. Humans are now causing a mass extinction event, and the warming didn't really started yet. The main threat is to human habitat, not life on Earth. We don't really know how dependent on the biosphere we really are, and perhaps we shouldn't try to find out.

"I guarantee you that rising fertilizer prices and fuel prices will kill many more people than rising sea levels"

I think here's your misconception (and also the reason why this needs to be talked about more) - the rising sea levels are (at least in this century) the least of our worries.

Possible heat and drought conditions are a much bigger problem, both directly (certain populated places on Earth might become unlivable) and indirectly (the agricultural output of major crops is expected to decrease). As someone else stated, yes, global warming won't kill you, a war or a famine will.

In any case, even if we didn't have a big problem with global warming, the fossil fuels would run out this century anyway, so if your society is dependent on them for survival (e.g. for making fertilizer), you better try to make the transition to something else (more sustainable) as soon as possible. However, it should be noted, vast majority of the world is not dependent on fossil fuels for survival, but for convenience, and we could easily make most of the transition away from them without any loss of human life. (And in fact thanks to cheap renewables we won't actually have to give up convenience either.)

[Gravityloss]

One minor but important detail: fertilizers are made with hydrogen that is currently coming from natural gas. But it could be exchanged to some other source, or the superfluous carbon could be stored in solid form etc.

[rsj_hn]

But those options don't exist at the moment due to their cost, so it's pretty foolish to raise the price of something now because in theory, a replacement might become cost effective in the future. A rich nation can take a hit like that but a poor nation can't -- they will just have a famine.

In other words, have that replacement in place and available before you start messing with the price of fossil fuels.

I really want to push against this neoliberal "carbon credit" mentality where we think market solutions will somehow provide replacements as needed. If you want to shut down a coal plant, fine first build the nuclear plant, and then switch over to the coal plant. If you want solar and are convinced batteries will work, then fine, build the batteries first and then switch over. Don't just rely on "the market" to allow you to shut something down and assume replacements will just appear.

[Gravityloss]

Sure, there are effects like you describe. But also, the new alternatives can't compete if the old polluting alternatives don't have to pay anything for their pollution.

Unless the new ones are subsidized a lot.

[Fckd]

Hence we have people buying bulldogers for commute and investing in ponzy schemes which are literally burning the world.

We dont have to move away from fossil fuels over night if we could reduce consumption. Minimalism is the key