| > New technology is the way to make people's lives better while also reducing global warming. It's not working, so it's fairy tale. Is there evidence that it's really an effective plan to save lives and money caused by climate change? > People were never going to accept, nor IMO should they have, a massive reduction in their living standards. The first is just a claim - people accept hardship all the time for one purpose or another (such as wars). Also, what is so sacrosanct about their living standards? Also, the liability of climate change is already on the balance sheet - and the massive reduction is coming, due to climate change. Just think of all the dead people, all the people who lose their property, all the poverty. It's like saying, 'I won't suffer a massive reduction in my spending in order to pay my mortgage.' You already have the liability; that sentence doesn't mean anything. The question is, given that reality, what will you do? Make up fairy tales about fairy godparents giving you magic wands to solve you problem? |