What kind of scenario are you thinking of when you argue that climate change is an existential risk? How do you think it might kill all or even 90% of the population?
Democrats (and parties of the left) are since they’re more likely to favor policies which reduce the threat of climate change
While the Obama administration did a few symbolic actions for climate change it didn’t move significantly on the issue. I don’t think there good reason to assume that things would be different under another Clinton.
Nixon went to China and the Obama administration waged it’s war against whistleblowers. There might be more political room for a Republican government to make substantial action on climate change than for a Democrat government.
Some Climatologists, such as James Hanson, believe that a runaway greenhouse effect large enough to potentially distinguish all life on earth is possible Obviously this is not a likely extinction event, but I believe it is still worth considerable resources to reduce its probability.
While little has been done legislatively to combat climate change, the Obama administration is pursuing regulatory action through the EPA to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that will make the construction of new coal fire power plants very difficult.
Additionally, the administration has benefited alternative energy industries through subsidies (in large part through the initial stimulus). Some Republicans do support such subsidies, so admittedly the difference between parties isn’t as stark on this point (though this may change with increasing polarization as described below).
Additionally polarization on climate change has increased in recent years. It’s less and less likely that a Republican president would pursue policy aimed at substantially reducing green house gasses. They might also appoint a supreme court member who would rule against the regulations the EPA is attempting to implement now.
I don’t think that the party who holds the presidency is the most important factor in whether we reduce carbon emissions, but it likely contributes.
While little has been done legislatively to combat climate change, the Obama administration is pursuing regulatory action through the EPA to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that will make the construction of new coal fire power plants very difficult.
The question is not whether they are persuing action but whether they are engaging in action that has a significant effect given the scale of the problem.
That’s very hard to say without quantifying “likely” and “considerable”. One could say the same about most extinction events, for certain definitions of those two words.
Convincing explanation for what? I thought we were discussing whether or not it was worth spending resources to prevent global extinction from global warming… which is more of a question than an explanation.
How is putting a numerical amount to “not likely” and “considerable” convuluted. That’s the basis of any decision probelm.
That’s why they are separated by the word “but”. If I were to say “it rained yesterday, but today it looks like it will be sunny”, would you object that “sun today doesn’t follow from rain yesterday”?
I believe we should be spending resources to avoid many unlikely existential risks, even those I believe are less likely to be existential risks than climate change (eg. tracking asteroids).
What kind of scenario are you thinking of when you argue that climate change is an existential risk? How do you think it might kill all or even 90% of the population?
While the Obama administration did a few symbolic actions for climate change it didn’t move significantly on the issue. I don’t think there good reason to assume that things would be different under another Clinton.
Nixon went to China and the Obama administration waged it’s war against whistleblowers. There might be more political room for a Republican government to make substantial action on climate change than for a Democrat government.
Some Climatologists, such as James Hanson, believe that a runaway greenhouse effect large enough to potentially distinguish all life on earth is possible Obviously this is not a likely extinction event, but I believe it is still worth considerable resources to reduce its probability.
While little has been done legislatively to combat climate change, the Obama administration is pursuing regulatory action through the EPA to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that will make the construction of new coal fire power plants very difficult.
Additionally, the administration has benefited alternative energy industries through subsidies (in large part through the initial stimulus). Some Republicans do support such subsidies, so admittedly the difference between parties isn’t as stark on this point (though this may change with increasing polarization as described below).
Additionally polarization on climate change has increased in recent years. It’s less and less likely that a Republican president would pursue policy aimed at substantially reducing green house gasses. They might also appoint a supreme court member who would rule against the regulations the EPA is attempting to implement now.
I don’t think that the party who holds the presidency is the most important factor in whether we reduce carbon emissions, but it likely contributes.
The question is not whether they are persuing action but whether they are engaging in action that has a significant effect given the scale of the problem.
The second part of that sentence oh so does not follow from the first part.
That’s very hard to say without quantifying “likely” and “considerable”. One could say the same about most extinction events, for certain definitions of those two words.
I find mood affiliation to be a much more convincing explanation than convoluted definitions of “not likely” and “considerable”.
Convincing explanation for what? I thought we were discussing whether or not it was worth spending resources to prevent global extinction from global warming… which is more of a question than an explanation.
How is putting a numerical amount to “not likely” and “considerable” convuluted. That’s the basis of any decision probelm.
For Torgo’s belief. He didn’t ask a question, he stated his belief upfront.
That’s why they are separated by the word “but”. If I were to say “it rained yesterday, but today it looks like it will be sunny”, would you object that “sun today doesn’t follow from rain yesterday”?
I believe we should be spending resources to avoid many unlikely existential risks, even those I believe are less likely to be existential risks than climate change (eg. tracking asteroids).
Methane bursts
Could you specify how human caused climate change would lead to such a result?