(06-04-2017 06:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-04-2017 02:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  OO, sorry you took my post that way, it wasn't meant to be condescending. I literally was meant to explain why you had not heard of resiliency, because it hasn't really entered the mainstream lexicon.
And my response to your central thesis is three-fold: people are focused on saving itself by addressing the impacts of climate change (resiliency), that a lot of the GHG reduction technology have multiple benefits (generally via a reduction in resource consumption), and that we cannot let perfection get in the way of progress.
It sounds like you do care about climate change and the potential effects it will have on future populations, as well as upcoming environmental stressors (e.g. water resources).
So if that is the case, why not support progress that will help address that? It seems like your lack of support is just because you feel as if others think GHG emission reductions will be a panacea to our problems. You say that it's because the former won't allow the latter, but why do you think that?

I think where OO and I both have problems is the definition of progress. To me, and I think to him as well, the dialogue sounds something like this:

Global warming is a catastrophe that will destroy life as we know it.
So what should we do?
Abandon oil, coal, and all fossil fuels.
But we have nothing to replace them with.
No matter, just abandon them and science will come up with something.
Anything else?
Oh yes, send trillions of dollars to developing countries.
Will those things solve the problem?
No.

The AGW crowd is trying to push costly actions with minimal benefits. The only way to do that is to stir up such a frenzy that people will make irrational decisions.

So it's just a messaging issue you have?

I don't think any mainstream environmentalist is suggesting that overnight we abandon our current energy infrastructure because it isn't feasible. And that isn't what the Paris Accords suggested.

The Accord suggested we continue to push for reductions, which we can easily do by working on increasing the fuel efficiency of motor vehicles or continuing to support the development of hybrid/electric cars. Or investing in green infrastructure to support our electrical grid until we can develop a more feasible method (battery/storage technology, nuclear [well, that isn't a development issue, that's a public opinion issue]) to provide a consistent base load and peak supplements when needed.

Honestly, no one is seriously suggesting that we abandon fossil fuels overnight, and unless I'm mistaken, no serious legislation/treaty has suggested such.