You think preventing climate change is more expensive than not preventing climate change? That’s an interesting point of view. I’m not sure the facts agree with you.
Wildfires that burn down houses and gigantic forests every summer, massive storms that take out coastal cities, that kind of stuff tends to have an expensive price tag attached to it.
It’s easy to forget, but the most effective first step for individuals who want to prevent climate change is: Reduce. And that costs nothing at all. It actually saves money. Of course there are many other things that ought to be done as well, but let’s keep in mind the starting point.
You think preventing climate change is more expensive than not preventing climate change?
I don’t think that and I didn’t say or imply that. No one seems to be able to comprehend the “what if it’s all a hoax” in the comic in question. In such a case, there is no climate change, and thus no associated costs.
the most effective first step for individuals who want to prevent climate change is: Reduce. And that costs nothing at all.
Except it does. When you don’t buy something, someone is not selling something. And there is likely something that you want to sell also, which others may not buy. That sort of thing applied at the level it would take to stop climate change would stop our entire economy dead in it’s tracks.
You think consuming less would stop the economy dead in it’s tracks. And … Is that a bad thing? As we know, “economy” means “rich people’s yachts”.
And just as obviously, reducing consumption is not binary. There’s no way to go to zero, nor would anyone seriously propose it. But anyway, with an increasing population and limited global resources, it’s inevitable that people will have to reduce at some point, so the disaster you hypothesize would strike us anyway. And in that case, gradual change now is better than catastrophic change later.
:sigh: you don’t “make a better world for nothing”. Preventing climate change would be extraordinarily expensive, if we were to actually do it.
Lying about it doesn’t make you anymore correct.
It’s equivalent to “for no reason” not to “for no cost”
The reason would be to not cost so much…
It would cost far more to not address the issue.
But the man in the comic assumes there is no issue at play.
Exactly.
No, it’s making fun of that assumption.
So, you don’t believe those things are worth the cost, absent the threat of climate change?
I do but that’s not the conversation we’re having.
What conversation are we having?
deleted by creator
You think preventing climate change is more expensive than not preventing climate change? That’s an interesting point of view. I’m not sure the facts agree with you.
Wildfires that burn down houses and gigantic forests every summer, massive storms that take out coastal cities, that kind of stuff tends to have an expensive price tag attached to it.
It’s easy to forget, but the most effective first step for individuals who want to prevent climate change is: Reduce. And that costs nothing at all. It actually saves money. Of course there are many other things that ought to be done as well, but let’s keep in mind the starting point.
I don’t think that and I didn’t say or imply that. No one seems to be able to comprehend the “what if it’s all a hoax” in the comic in question. In such a case, there is no climate change, and thus no associated costs.
Except it does. When you don’t buy something, someone is not selling something. And there is likely something that you want to sell also, which others may not buy. That sort of thing applied at the level it would take to stop climate change would stop our entire economy dead in it’s tracks.
So you’re saying our economy is a pyramid scheme based on a flawed system?
Huh? That doesn’t remotely resemble anything I said.
It’s basically exactly what you said.
😂 okay bud
Let’s depopulate the planet and rebuild the economy to healthy and sustainable levels!
I like your thinking.
You think consuming less would stop the economy dead in it’s tracks. And … Is that a bad thing? As we know, “economy” means “rich people’s yachts”.
And just as obviously, reducing consumption is not binary. There’s no way to go to zero, nor would anyone seriously propose it. But anyway, with an increasing population and limited global resources, it’s inevitable that people will have to reduce at some point, so the disaster you hypothesize would strike us anyway. And in that case, gradual change now is better than catastrophic change later.
That’s not what I said. We’re not talking about reusing a few plastic bags here. We’re talking about reversing global warming.
Reusing? I thought we were talking about reducing. And I don’t think anyone is talking about reversing.
Whoosh.
More expensive for the rich, yes. The rest of us want to stop having to pay for things we don’t want through degrading our surrounding environment.
I mean…if you could somehow convince them to give up their fortunes to fix the climate, sure.
But if you could do that, we wouldn’t be in this situation in the first place.