I don’t understand why the climate change argument is framed the way it is. Side one argues climate change is real so inaction will lead to drastic changes which we will have difficulty adapting to causing a wide range of problems which range from serious to terminal in nature.
Side two argues that climate change is not real and if it is real it is not caused by humans.
I would posit that we as a consequence of the outcomes of acting on climate change do not need to know with certitude whether climate change is real and/or that it is man-made.
Let me explain.
- If the engine light is on in your car, you act to make sure that the car gets looked at to ensure that the car doesn’t break down. You can posit that the engine light is faulty. But the smart thing to do is act on the problem because fixing it now will be far less costly in the long run than if the car breaks down. It also poses an existential risk by continuing to drive a possibly faulty vehicle. It also poses a risk to others in the environment around which the car is being used.
- By acting on climate change you reduce the use of fossil fuels, which are a finite resource we need to conserve for future use by other generations of humans.
3.Using fossil fuels the way we do cause other forms of harm to ourselves and the environment which could be mitigated by reducing its necessity.
- As fossil fuels become less abundant the costs will go up and be passed on through all levels of the market. By not relying on them there costs will remain affordable than if they continue to be used by necessity.
Alternate energy sources will be cheaper in the long run by the very nature of technology.
The technology will be adopted more widely, creating a thriving green energy technology sector which is well funded because of demand. This will provide ongoing innovation in the energy sector, but also other areas of society and the economy. This means we will advance faster as a society.
It will disrupt existing power structures which some see as malignant. These power structures which is one of the reasons “Side 2′ is so well funded and have undermined the science.
It’s good for democracy as oil-rich countries will have less power, which they maintain through the necessity of all countries need for oil.
Plenty of green energy jobs.
Can you think of any more? Do you feel there are arguments against this rationale?
My main argument is that the people who have argued the case for climate change have done so by arguing mainly on whether the science is right or wrong when they perhaps would make better ground positing why acting on it even if the science is wrong is the best approach for humanity. Then on top of that positing the argument of safety first
This nullifies their argument even if on the chance they are right.