[europeanNyan]

Maybe people are just tired from the same old alarmism which is then used to introduce more and more limitations and never touches the biggest offenders. Sure, introduce the next tax, lovely. Hope Nestle doesn't get touched.

[realusername]

The measures against climate change have been so weak until now that I don't think we can even talk about limitations yet. At least there's some equality here I guess, nobody doesn't do anything.

[fooker]

The measures against climate change has been weak precisely because of alarmism.

If everything is going to shit anyways, why throw resources into a black hole fixing it today? Check how many headlines have been saying inevitable, point of no return, etc etc for several decades.

Another aspect of this is overfitting on metrics like CO2 emissions, that's how you get hot garbage like carbon offsets that allow the worst offenders to keep operating like they have always been.

[realusername]

You live in a parallel world, the vast majority of the mainstream news out there are outright climate change deniers funded by billionaires and the few ones who don't cannot even relay the whole truth for being accused of "alarmism".

The reason nobody does anything about climate change is because it threatens their wealth, not because it's a catastrophe.

[fooker]

In my 'parallel world', it does seem like the mainstream media publishes articles every week or so (for the last decade or so) about how we are at the point of no return for climate change. And all of it is preserved in this wonderful searchable web of articles that ensures one does not have to speculate about what was published.

Maybe search on the web, who knows, it could turn out that you too live in the same world!

[realusername]

I'm sorry but no they really don't.

As an example, there's been some pretty deadly heatwave feuled by climate changed recently for example both in Sub-Saharan africa and south east asia and I'm sure nobody is really aware of it.

Turns out the "alarmist" as you call them were right all along and the current events are following pretty much the worst case scenarios.

[fooker]

You first say that alarmists don't exist, but then also they were right all along?

[deepsun]

What if in 50 years it turns out alarmists were right, and there's nothing could be done? Anti-alarmists will say "oopsie, we were wrong, you were right, now we see". But it won't help.

Imagine there's a huge asteroid comes at Earth, but it will strike only in 100 years. Alarmists start screaming that we need to act NOW, but anti-alarmists would be like "oh come on, you're screaming it for the last 44 years, please stop".

People are pretty bad at solving long problems.

[fooker]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

You can extend this 'what if I am right' argument to literally anything, making it vacuous.

[BearOso]

Pascal's wager doesn't require much effort on behalf of the user, though. The idea is the benefits far outweigh the downsides. So should we just try to have a cleaner earth with the benefit of subverting this dangerous thing if it does exist?

The clincher here is that most of the greenhouse gasses come from giant corporations. As non-billionaire individuals, we don't have to personally give anything up. All we have to do is get those corporations to stop polluting simply because it's more profitable in the short term.

[fooker]

>All we have to do is get those corporations to stop polluting simply because it's more profitable in the short term.

Agreed. Also happy to personally give up conveniences if it helps.

The distinction is between 'this bad thing should be fixed', and 'this double plus super duper bad thing is going to kill everyone'.

Why even bother if the second one correct?