[kevin_nisbet]

> In general I grow super weary of companies and the government downplaying these sorts of things. It seems to constantly follow the pattern of people saying "It's not that bad" and then only years later do we actually see the horrific health and environmental effects of these sorts of things play out when it's too late for the folks that have been impacted. This isn't really the same, but I've been thinking in similar areas a lot lately in the context of climate change, and the debate around climate change, although debating any topic doesn't change many minds.

If you bet on the scientific majority around climate change being wrong / non-existent / something we can't control, and end up being wrong, then the worst case scenario we make the planet uninhabitable (I'm going to the extreme here).

If you bet that climate change exists and is man-made and end up wrong, we've unnecessarily invested a huge amount of money into reducing pollution, more efficient buildings / manufacturing / transport, and reduce the dependence on a limited set of oil producers to be able to hold supply of oil over nations.

For something more immediate like health concerns with this derailment, is should the officials be more willing to be wrong? And message as such?

[danaris]

Unfortunately, the problem here is that for the individual politicians, if you bet that climate change exists, the worst case scenario is that the big money turns against you and you lose office.

If you bet that climate change doesn't exist or can't be fixed, so we might as well go on with the status quo, the worst case is that you get voted out by environmentally-conscious voters...after getting scads of campaign contributions from the big money, and with a good chance of getting a cushy lobbying post from them afterwards.

These are the incentives we need to change.

[corbulo]

>If you bet on the scientific majority around climate change being wrong / non-existent / something we can't control, and end up being wrong, then the worst case scenario we make the planet uninhabitable (I'm going to the extreme here).

Have you heard of Pascals wager? What do you think of it?

The problem with your 2nd part is it hasn't been actually shifting away from oil, just shifting where in the chain uses more of it. 'Green' infrastructure and products are still overwhelmingly powered by oil & coal and require such significant amounts of emissions to extract that it is self-defeating in the majority of cases. The strongest advocates of 'Green' energy have been frequently silent on Nuclear Energy, which is an obvious and much easier solution to their own alarmism than wind farms (have you seen local eco impacts and blade disposal?) solar (works only where it's sunny with limited options for power storage which is its own can of worms).

>For something more immediate like health concerns with this derailment, is should the officials be more willing to be wrong? And message as such?

I think transparency is what is being requested, not wrongness.

[kevin_nisbet]

> Have you heard of Pascals wager? What do you think of it?

If I have I don't remember it, thanks for bring it up. I'm still trying to absorb it, but I find it to be a fascinating insight. Part of it, is I often try to remind myself that I don't know what I don't know.

> The problem with your 2nd part is it hasn't been actually shifting away from oil, just shifting where in the chain uses more of it.

Well that's true today, but is also basically correct no matter what happens. Our society only operates because of the stuff, so today, any other energy types are going to be transported by oil, manufactured using electricity from hydrocarbons, etc.

> The strongest advocates of 'Green' energy have been frequently silent on Nuclear Energy, which is an obvious and much easier solution

What really changed my mind on this side of the discussion, was a point I heard somewhere that we would've really need to start this 15 years ago. Nuclear is so capital intensive and so long to build, we don't get the necessary impact for far too long if we start now. I'm totally onboard extending lifetime of current reactors if safe to do so, and think new nuclear should be some mix of future energy supplies. I'm keeping an eye on the industry here and totally want the startups to succeed, but I'm under the impression we need to pursue other options here as well.

This probably isn't the best thread to debate the nuances wind and solar and storage, you're right, there are real waste and safety problems with these technologies. But I don't know that also means they aren't the current best option for some mix of new investments.

But, I simply don't know what I don't know.

[peyton]

You’re betting other people’s money in the second case, and they have a say.

[webnrrd2k]

In a civilized, democratic society that's always true. But it doesn't disqualify the original point.

And it works both ways... Other people have spent trillions of US dollars on, for e.g., the war in the middle east. Some of my tax money went to that. I didn't have the ability to veto it.

There should be a reasonable public debate and then people vote. Very often it involves spending other peoples money. That's just how it works.

[bakuninsbart]

That money was granted to them as a reward for contributing to society. Society has a say in how it can be spent.

[artificialLimbs]

They were either granted it or they weren't.

[webnrrd2k]

Getting money from society doesn't come with a grant of immunity to it's rules. Are you saying that it should?

If you use your money to start a business involving a giant tire fire in your back yard then society will, rightfully so, have something to say about it.