I have a hard time understanding climate change deniers.
Not only is the science pretty solid but it has come to the point that even the casual observer can see the changes. Who can deny that every year brings new record highs?
Some will acknowledge the change but dispute the cause. Claim that carbon emissions produced by man couldn’t possibly affect our climate, despite the historical data and computer models that correlate with the effects we are seeing today.
Most deniers claim that the science isn’t complete. That the cause(s) may in fact be natural. Beyond mans control.
Making the claim that “the science isn’t complete” indicates that they acknowledge at least a chance that the cause(s) are man made and that is what puts them beyond my understanding.
Let’s assume that the science is wrong and we take steps to dramatically reduce carbon emissions anyway. What is the worst that can happen?
Yes, it may for the short term make energy a bit more expensive and cost jobs in the oil and coal industries, but in the long term those jobs lost would be replaced by better, less dangerous jobs in the renewable energy market. We also get rid of limited pollution producing energy sources and replace them with unlimited clean environmentally friendly energy.
The best part is that wind, solar, geothermal, bio-fuels.. ..ect, are stable, globally distributed resources. Which means that their use can only get cheaper.
Even without climate change, moving away from fossil fuels still makes a lot of sense. The long term benefits far outweigh any short term hardships.
Now, lets assume the science is right and we don’t take action to dramatically reduce our carbon emissions,
We are already seeing animals like the Polar Bear becoming endangered and facing extinction due to environmental changes. Permafrost is melting, possibly releasing diseases that hasn’t been seen in thousands of years, from which we may not have a defence.
In just a few decades we will lose billions, if not trillions of dollars worth of property in our coastal cities due to rising sea levels. Our food supply will start to dwindle due to massive crop failures and interruption of our food chain. Widespread wars will break out as people fight over disappearing resources.
Within fifty to one hundred years our environment could collapse altogether making the earth inhospitable to human life.
So which seems like the more reasonable option? Take a chance on a less than ideal economic impact or take a chance of subjecting our children and grandchildren to a miserable existence on a dying planet?
I know climate change deniers love their children, so why would they take that chance, even if they see it as a small one?
This brings up another perplexing thought. I understand that there are people who accept that climate change is real and accept that the cause is man made, yet still vote for people who would do everything in their power to ensure we keep using fossil fuels,
What issue could possibly be more important than the fate of the climate our lives depend on?
If we fuck this world up, there is no other.
There is a tipping point and once we reach it there is no return, That point is very very close (if not already here).
Perhaps there is a line of reasoning that the deniers have that I am missing. If there is please reply and let me know.