[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

By the way, this is exactly what a climate change denier would write, except that that would talk about collapsing the economy if we focused too much on reducing carbon emissions.

The truth is reducing CO2 emissions is an emergency, and any other environmental considerations other than doing that is just arguing about deck chairs on the Titanic.

At this point, we would have been in a much better position if the Greens had no been so rabidly anti-nuclear. Germany is restarting coal plants now.

At some point, as the article argues, following “environmental intuitions” is self-defeating.

[wizofaus]

> reducing CO2 emissions is an emergency, and any other environmental considerations other than doing that is just arguing about deck chairs on the Titanic

I don't think that latter sentence follows from the first at all - it's very much a slow emergency that will play out over decades and indeed centuries, and furthermore with a global population of 8+ billion, clearly it's not feasible for all of us to drop everything just to focus on any one single environmental issue. There are inevitably going to some actions that need to be taken to ensure long term ecological health that aren't related to mitigating against climate change, but are just as important, esp. wrt release of toxins/agricultural runoff into the environment, or drawing down water tables or monitoring invasive species (a problem already, but often exacerbated by warming temperatures). Thankfully we can walk and chew gum at the same time. (FWIW I agree re the anti- nuclear stance of environment groups - and would do so regardless of the need for low-emission power: nuclear energy production generally has a much lower environmental footprint than fossil fuel generation)

[pasabagi]

It's a slow emergency in the sense that the effects will slowly increase, but it's very much a fast emergency in that the actions we take now are vastly more effective than they would be in a decade, or even a year. Because it's a self-feeding system, we will have to work much harder in the future to get the same results we could get by making reasonable mitigations today.

[wizofaus]

Sure - I don't think that changes my point though. And I have some sympathy for the argument that there may be some changes we shouldn't rush into without understanding them better (e.g. Sri Lanka's experiment with organic farming), or until we have better/cheaper technology available - what we should be doing now is a lot more research into mitigation and adaptation options.

[dbingham]

I agree that following environmental intuitions is self-defeating, but so is chasing red herrings. And this is exactly why I'm trying to build something that will allow us all to make these analysis on primary sources, not secondary ones like the OP.

Climate is an emergency, but if we go chasing the wrong "solutions" based on bad data or incomplete data, or take the base of the ecosystem out from under us in the process, then we won't resolve the emergency or we'll end up in a worse place.

There are some things we know - transportation, housing, urban design, energy, many aspects of industrial manufuaction and waste disposal. These are still complex, but have much clearer cost benefit analysis. We know what the answers are there. Some of them involve individual action (like I laid out below) others are going to require collective action.

Agriculture is a mess with a pitched propaganda war taking place around it. I've spent a decade trying to sort out what is true, and I'm still no closer to feeling like I can say with certainty what the most ecological diet is. But I know that anyone who can say it with certainty has not done complete research.

[sdenton4]

It's really not a single variable problem, though. We're also looking at biodiversity collapse as humans atomize and invade wild spaces, and declines in insect populations which prop up the rest of the biosphere, including human agriculture.

We're making significant progress on cleaning up energy production, as wind and solar are now the most economic ways to produce new energy by a very long shot. The trajectory of the temperature curve is bending in the right direction, and should bend further. At some point we also need to pay attention to the rest of the quality of life on earth.

[matkoniecz]

> The truth is reducing CO2 emissions is an emergency

Almost nobody among claiming that treats it seriously.

Prominent celebrities claiming that travel by plane.

Greenpeace continues to oppose nuclear power.

Solar power gets blocked because some endemic species or pretty views are threatened.

Noone supports killing air travel.

---------------------------

Almost nobody among "CO2 is emergency" is actually willing to sacrifice own benefits or other priorities. At most they demand sacrifice from others.

I am not going to treat plane-travelling celebrities declaring climate emergency that threatens survival of humanity. The same goes for eco-organizations not willing to support deregulation of nuclear power.

[zahma]

“The truth is reducing CO2 emissions is an emergency, and any other environmental considerations other than doing that is just arguing about deck chairs on the Titanic.”

This statement is wrong. Climate and collapsing ecosystems/biodiversity are connected, and one is not more urgent than the other.

[Gibbon1]

We would have been in a much better position if nuclear and fossil fuel interests hadn't been rabidly anti-renewable either because we could have started the transition 20-30 year earlier.

[kcplate]

> if the Greens had no been so rabidly anti-nuclear.

honestly I never understood this. Always seemed a more Luddite response than a environmentally principled one.

[s17n]

"Environmentalism" didn't originally have anything to do with preserving human life. If you don't regard the preservation of human life/civilization as the goal, what's the argument for CO2 emissions being an emergency?

[prmoustache]

The emergency was 50 years ago.

[willis936]

And today and 50 years from now and very likely at least another 100 years beyond that. Prior inaction does not mean it's over. We don't get the luxury of having a "oh well we lost this round" mentality.

[prmoustache]

If you really want to curb co2 emissions significantly, the only effective way would be to nuke the USA, Europe, China and sterilize all but 5% of the remaining world population.

Anything else is just greenwashing at this point.

[willis936]

That is not true. The all-or-nothing mentality is why vegetarian purists do little to curb mass meat consumption. We don't need to choose between industrial society and destroying our habitat. We can have both if we're thoughtful about what indulgences we allow.

[prmoustache]

> We can have both if we're thoughtful about what indulgences we allow.

Which we don't because we fear losing comfort/commodity and can't agree on modalities.