It’s something I am personally very worried about.
If well-funded lobbies make sure that policy makers are well-informed, then we cannot expect them to be well-informed on the state of the climate and how to adapt. Sustainable development has become a field that is capable of lobbying. It is based on the assumption that the situation is still salvageble and that doing so is compatible with our current economic systems. It is therefore more appealing to policy-makers and easier to invest in than the more radical environmentalist position that the situation is not salvageable and that we should focus on collectively preparing for/adapting to massively disruptive climate change. The more catastrophic views on climate change are anti-capitalist at their core. continued increase in production and consumption, even if done more efficiently, cannot be maintained in the future scenarios they deem most likely, and thus they do not have industry on their side or well-funded lobbyists.
I believe that it is unlikely that policy-makers have grasped the situation accurately.
It is based on the assumption that the situation is still salvageble and that doing so is compatible with our current economic systems.
There are many ways to do geoengeneering that allow us to change the temperature of earth how we desire. Given how cheap some approaches of geoengenieering are and how easy they can be done unilaterally by a single country.
The more catastrophic views on climate change are anti-capitalist at their core.
Basically, there’s a politically ideology where people who are already anti-capitalist make up a scenarios around climate changes that distinct from the scientific predictions. It’s just another group of people who don’t believe in the science and care more about their politics.
continued increase in production and consumption, even if done more efficiently, cannot be maintained in the future scenarios they deem most likely
Asteroid mining in addition to a Dyson sphere around the sun allows for hundreds of years of increased production and consumption.
Why is climate change not very important?
It’s something I am personally very worried about.
If well-funded lobbies make sure that policy makers are well-informed, then we cannot expect them to be well-informed on the state of the climate and how to adapt. Sustainable development has become a field that is capable of lobbying. It is based on the assumption that the situation is still salvageble and that doing so is compatible with our current economic systems. It is therefore more appealing to policy-makers and easier to invest in than the more radical environmentalist position that the situation is not salvageable and that we should focus on collectively preparing for/adapting to massively disruptive climate change. The more catastrophic views on climate change are anti-capitalist at their core. continued increase in production and consumption, even if done more efficiently, cannot be maintained in the future scenarios they deem most likely, and thus they do not have industry on their side or well-funded lobbyists.
I believe that it is unlikely that policy-makers have grasped the situation accurately.
There are many ways to do geoengeneering that allow us to change the temperature of earth how we desire. Given how cheap some approaches of geoengenieering are and how easy they can be done unilaterally by a single country.
Basically, there’s a politically ideology where people who are already anti-capitalist make up a scenarios around climate changes that distinct from the scientific predictions. It’s just another group of people who don’t believe in the science and care more about their politics.
Asteroid mining in addition to a Dyson sphere around the sun allows for hundreds of years of increased production and consumption.