The idea of "unbounded capitalism", leading to incessant growth, while painting reductions as "impoverishment", is a capital error.

Reality doesn't allow for any such thing and wishing for it doesn't make it so.

Consequently, ignoring that reality will see you running head-on into a wall. With wildly devastating consequences: El Niño is just one immediate symptom, look at the AMOC. It collapsing will see about 70% or more of Earth's population wiped out. Along with the corresponding capacity for crop growth.

What you need to do is actually preventing foreseeable calamities, not complaining about people pointing you at them.

>that's what climate change warriors are selling them.

Interesting way to frame the constraints of reality.

The current administration and withdrawn from the Paris agreement, UNFCCC, and IPCC.

Things might have improved from 20 years ago but the more recent governmental trend is not positive.

This statistic completely ignores the fact that the US externalizes its' CO2 emissions by externalizing by sending our manufacturing to other countries.

How much of China's CO2 is a result of the products Americans buy that were manufactured in China?

If we look at CO2 as a result of consumption it would tell a truer story.

[dead]

> in the political doghouse and gets you crucified on social media

This is arguably the correct thing, even if you believe the situation is urgent, if you also believe that other things are more urgent. Suppose you think that fixing declining education or economies is absolutely prerequisite, and that until people are smarter or more comfortable or both, even discussing the climate too often weakens your chances of building effective coalitions.

Personally, I go back and forth when I weigh this sort of thing, I'm really not sure. We probably need to at least consider that this is a consistent/coherent perspective. Of course, it's not a invitation to make things worse as fast as possible with drill-baby-drill.. but an acknowledgement that there are many other ways to make things worse, such as pissing people off. Aggravating corporations is fine, but for people who are not ready to hear about this, we need real consideration and a real offer. However inconsistently, we have tried forcing an agenda they need to comply with already, so now let's try something else

I called them neither of that, I pointed out the infantile nature of their reaction.

Telling people the truth evokes all kinds of weird reactions, that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.

The preservation of our shared prerequisite for our continued existence isn't accurately captured by financial metrics. Pretending it was is a major error.

You start with protecting "people" (you are included?) against supposed accusations of stupidity, only to then go on and paint them (and yourself) as stupid and unable to judge connections and consequences correctly. And even stoop to pointing at whataboutisms of imaginary upsides.

I'd say more commonly we say consequence, but I think you can fairly use cost and consequence interchangeably here. They have similar meaning. However, consequence/cost too are subjective. Thus risk is also subjective. Something cannot be objective if its variables are subjective.

The moisture is a side-effect of the additional energy in the atmosphere - warmer gases can hold more water vapour.

And that's the thing - our climate is a massively complex system of interacting systems, and now we've put more energy into it, and it'll show up in the variability.

If there is something you don't believe is a risk, who are going to file a claim with? Normally insurers expect you to arrange insurance beforehand, which requires identifying something you believe is a risk.

Yes, that’s the exact definition of subjective