>>10211696Let's take another approach. Let's say Climate Change IS bullshit, just for this argument.
What do these scientists propose as a countermeasure against Climate Change and what effects would that have that are external to the issue?
>Proposal one: lower fossil fuel use, preferably to zeroLess reliance on a finite resource, favouring resources that are abundant (solar, wind, the rest of the renewables). At the very least, development and research into renewables provides another source of electricity for us. This should help bring prices of electricity down in the long run, as the supply of electricity increases.
>Proposal two: improve our infrastructure to be more efficientOverall means we require less energy for the same standard of living in the long run. This means you should be spending less on powering your life, given your electricity/other resource expenditure doesn't increase. It will, in all likelihood, but more efficient infrastructure helps to offset this anyway.
>Proposal three: consume lessAs far as I can tell this is the main issue a lot of people have with Climate Change arguments. Telling people to reduce or abolish their consumption of meat, for example, is very likely to cause contention. In this specific example, lab-grown meat that utilises efficient technologies and infrastructure without noticeable (or any) loss in quality of meat (eventually) solves the problem neatly. A lot of the problems in this category can be solved similarly by investment into the research. Reducing current consumption is a short-term solution to a long-term problem, though it could help the overall health of the population if excess consumption is curbed. Think lower obesity rates from eating vastly more than you should be.
Those are basically the main three issues, with many others able to be grouped under the whole "increasing efficiency" section.
Even if it was bullshit, the steps we want to take are beneficial to all.
