[noknownsender]

I think the second half of your comment argues against the first.

You're right that people are unwilling to make the basic changes that are obviously needed. But we only know precisely that those changes would work to fight against climate change because we are able to say with certainty that those behaviors are contributing factors.

Any suggested actions have to have some level of scientific credibility to be taken seriously. Without it, they are easily dismissed by claiming that the planet is too complex to know if our actions will make a difference.

That, purely by coincidence, I'm sure, has been the exact argument used against making any changes, and against the fact that warming was happening in the first place, and against tobaccos cancer risk, and any other public policy proposal that goes against the interest of those profiting from the status quo.

[flagrant_taco]

I'm actually arguing the opposite. We don't know precisely that any of the suggested changes I listed would make a clear impact on climate change. My point is that, regardless of what happens with climate change, we could cut oil use with little to no impact on our daily lives.

We don't actually know the extent of impacts from either our oil use or potential cuts. We have modeling data that we extrapolate out, the issue I'm raising is that we get stuck in a loop of people debating whether the modeling data is accurate, complete, or predictive.

There are changes we can easily make without knowing those answers. If we can make simple changes that at a minimum wouldn't hurt the planet and almost certainly would help it, why don't we? My read is that we simply must not care. We don't need to buy as many things as we do, or to expert those costs overseas. We don't need to travel the world by plane. We don't need the latest iPhone made on the other side of the planet. We don't need LLMs. We do it because we like convenience and novelty more that we actually care about our impact on the planet. And we avoid implementing real solutions by first demanding that we have a complete understanding of the cause and blame.

[nsxwolf]

If the "basic changes" are more extreme than the COVID lockdowns, which made the entire world miserable, brought unprecedented economic destruction we'll be dealing with forever, and which also didn't cool the planet at all despite massive decreases in CO2 emissions... no thanks.

I'll keep voting against anything that makes me poorer and more miserable.

[NoGravitas]

Well, you'll end up even poorer and more miserable in the end if you have it your way. But at least you get your treats for a few more years.

[flagrant_taco]

I sincerely hope that we aren't at a point where most people's guiding principles are minimizing their own poorness or misery. Those should be a given and self interest is backed into us, but we're in for a world of hurt if those are the only deciding factors take into account.

Some things are in fact worth dying for.

[southernplaces7]

Bullshit. Nobody can factually, concretely state that climate change will go a specific, certain way to cause a specific certain amount of misery over the next century. There are too many technological, social, economic, and extremely complex climate variables at play for that to be a concrete assertion.

This isn't to say that measures to reduce carbon emissions can't or shouldn't be taken, they can and they should, but with a mind towards exactly what you deride, preventing as many people as possible from falling into draconian economic and social misery. That at least is something we concretely know to be possible if governments adopt the wrong control measures in a heavy handed way. The pandemic showed it clearly and concretely in many forms.

We're not talking here about the impending, concrete impact of a large asteroid, or a super volcano eruption that's definitely imminent, where mass economic sacrifice for the sake of saving humanity would be understandable. Climate change is, despite all the political fanfare, something that has too many variables to clearly define as a cataclysm.

Given that, there is nothing selfish about wanting to avoid misery and "dying" for yourself and your children in the face of ambiguous predictions about future events. If you're so convinced that "some things are worth dying for", what stops you from applying your own advice instead of preaching sanctimoniously to others?

[flagrant_taco]

I think we may have a difference in degree when it comes to what we think may be coming. I don't expect the planet to burst into flames over night, but we have already done unimaginable damage to soil, water, and life on this planet. It can probably bounce back and maybe humans will even be here to see it, but in the nearer term I don't see it as a question of mitigating pain while the systems we have today continue to chug along.

I could very well be wrong, and if core systems don't break then I do understand the goal of just being less miserable today.

[lobocinza]

That and those that dominate the narrative around climate change are the ones who sabotaged nuclear power in the first place. We don't understand the problem/solution space enough so the most sensible is to invest in climate research and monitoring.

[flagrant_taco]

To what end? What will more data do when it's inevitably going to be incomplete and largely based on modeling?

We won't ever understand the problem space of the entire ecosystem well enough to make a complete solution. But there are easy things that can be done if we actually cared to, and we certainly don't need to keep piling on more things that almost certainly make things worse.

[lobocinza]

> But there are easy things that can be done.

Sure, like stopping subsidies to fossil fuel industry but I don't think cutting CO2 emissions is easy as you paint. How would we do that in a short notice? Through government? I'm extremely pessimistic towards "solutions" that require bigger government or new taxes as politicians almost always follow perverse incentives and don't care about long term consequences. My government subsidizes the coal industry using taxpayer money while making it hard for citizens to generate their own clean energy through laws and taxes. Government isn't the savior.

> We won't ever understand the problem space of the entire ecosystem well enough to make a complete solution.

More data and better models does nothing to prevent the planet from warming but help us plan mitigation strategies ahead and give us more confidence towards the efficacy/consequences of interventions. Right now we clearly understand that the planet is warming and that we are somewhat close to a cascading failure but what else? I don't like the prospects of downing living standards to the stone age so we may delay global warming. This isn't a solution and is a big sacrifice.