VAMatt said:
GoOnKid said:
Based on the replies you and others give in this thread I want to make a quick summary of your thoughts (I don't want to single you out on this entirely but your post is just a great hook, please don't be mad at me).
How it really is:
A) Scientists claim that humanity will suffer severely if we don't change.
B) Governments declare rules and regulations to help face the dangers
C) Industries adapt, new technologies arise, efficiency is increased, less resources are used
D) The end doesn't come, scientists are wrong
How it appears to you:
A) Scientists claim that humanity will suffer severely if we don't change.
B) The end doesn't come, scientists are wrong
You may not always see the consequences but technology is always on the verge of becoming more efficient and less resource consuming, and this process is propelled by the science behind it. Nowadays researchers try to push biodegradable packaging solutions for example to stop wasting our oceans. Power generation from fossil fuels become exchanged against natural resources like wind, water and the sun. Car manufactores work on car engines with electrical or hydrogen cells to stop polluting the air. The change is happening, my friend. We still have a long road ahead of us, however, and the more people are behin this change, the easier it will be for everyone.
Once humanity has solved the climate problem, there will always be people who close their eyes and ears about all the small changes and milestones that were reached on the journey. Those people will still say that scientiests were always wrong. But that is simply because humanity listens to them.
EDIT: Also, science evolves over time. It may appear like scientists contradict each other and change their opinions every now and then but that is because the situations change all the time as well. Scientific researches are constantly challenged and debated against because that is how the process of science just works.
|
The problem with this line of thinking is that we never do nearly as much as the scientists claim we need to do. Yet, the doom doesn't come. That's the fundamental problem with this whole "climate emergency" stuff. Scientists announce if we don't do X by year Y, we'll see problem Z. Humans institute 1/4 of X by year Y+5, but problem Z never occurs. It's classic alarmism, and it is directly harmful to the environment because it kills the credibility of science around the subject.
|
Scientists said that tides will rise, coasts will be flooded, islands will disappear, people will be forced to move if we don't change. There will be many more natural disasters like tornados and floods, former green places will be deserted and arid, millions of plants and animals will be extinct.These are the problems Z you mentioned.
We can already see all of these problems Z today. If we don't change, it will just get worse from this point on. This is what the OP is all about - the damage is already done. Now we look at how to keep the damage as low as possible.
However, we can't just turn everything upside down just with the snap of a finger, we need a lot of time to adapt to this change, therefore the European Union decided to reduce the CO2 exhaustion by 95% by the year 2050. Why so long? Because there are millions of jobs and lives attached to the current situation. Circumstances, infratsructures, industries and mentalities need time to change and the people must slowly learn to deal with these new situations. This just takes time.
