Only an absolute fucking retard believes in global warming, only an idiot would believe the politicized bullshit that involves the whole "green" industry.
>What is the environmentalist's dream scenario?
Obviously its a global socialist government that reduces the world population to 1 billion, where most just live as agrarian serfs to benefit the few elite.
They would be part of the elite, ofc
Not the guy you replied to bi4cswgaf
The best solution would be to develop carbon neutral technologies that are better, not meme ones like wind and solar but molten salt nuclear with hydrogen generation plants that have a better ROE so that other countries naturally gravitate to that economy, reducing all of the harmful effects of fossil fuel extraction, not just carbon.
>Climate variations range from high to low.
This is meaningless.
>If the warming effect falls within the high range then AGW is nothing but an interesting study on how industry affects global climate, not an emergency call for a global tax on industry.
How does that follow? AGW is or isn't an emergency depending on your sense of time and scale. It's not an emergency in the sense of a shooting or a heart attack. It's an emergency on the order of several decades involving costs which individual humans find hard to comprehend. It doesn't mean the end of humanity, it means the slow accumulation of hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars in costs from a more extreme climate and an ecology that can't adapt fast enough. So of course it's convenient for you to describe AGW as "alarmist" or "an emergency call" as a strawman, because the real thing doesn't look like that on a typical human scale.
It's more of an insurance accountant's emergency. They tell you you should take some minor steps to preserve a comfortable future, but you don't listen. Question is, why do you need to lie and claim that a minor tax would be catastrophic for industry if you actually have a rational argument against it?
While the two groups do overlap a lot, it's possible to be an environmentalist and not a Marxist Globalist.
There's no reason for that not to be the dream of Exxon and other fossil fuel companies too, as long as they're the ones that will be building the reactors, but that doesn't answer my question. I've heard multiple times that even if we stopped all CO2 emissions today, we're too far gone for it to make a difference. Is that bullshit or what? Like said I'm sure there are people out there that want us all to live like substance farmers, but that isn't the majority of people.
So what do they want?
If we're too far gone already, why waste time on wind and solar? Shouldn't we focus on something that will actually address the problem of warming?
>What do you want to do about it?
A small tax would reduce emissions enough to save many billions of dollars in future damage. Economists calculate an "optimal" carbon tax that maximizes the amount of money saved vs. lost to taxes. What's great is that this is simply the effect of having the tax. If the tax revenue is spent on research and technology, we can mitigate the damage even further. This can be done in individual countries and it would still save a certain amount of billions. But obviously it would be better to get every country to implement an optimal tax.
In addition, more funding should go to nuclear power, especially fusion, and other clean power sources since they will have to be developed anyway. You might not like subsidies, but's that's just how science is funded. And it's better than useless defense spending.
HAHAHA YOU'RE A FUCKING BIOLOGY STUDENT I BET IT'S MARINE BIOLOGY BECAUSE YOU LIKE DOLPHINS YOU FAGGOT
Wrong, math major currently in law school.
You should have stuck with the fucking dolphins then.
Nice argument.
Who's arguing? I'm just laughing at you at this point, mainly because of your hilarious insurance metaphor.