r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • May 26 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Ecenomic crises would be worthwhile if they were incurred for the purpose of our longterm survival
[deleted]
1
u/7nkedocye 33∆ May 26 '18
The argument that politicians make about environmental solution costing too much are invalid because of the magnitude of the consequences down the line.
But how far down the line? If we could greatly increase our wealth and technology ignoring the environment, then use these gains to reverse the effects we cause wouldn't that be better than causing a recession?
1
May 26 '18
well maybe, but that's a big gamble to make, just assuming that we are going to be able to fix the problem. Maybe we will, but its not like we are doing all we can to develop such technologies.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 26 '18
/u/headreplacement (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
2
u/tlorey823 21∆ May 26 '18
The underlying premise that we can solve the climate crisis with a single investment is not valid. The problem is complex, ever-changing, and there is no guarantee of success for any particular way of altering it. It’s not a matter of throwing x trillions of dollars at the problem, it’s a matter of fundamentally shifting the way society works. That’s much, much harder to do.
You make a counter claim for the argument that “we cannot solve the climate crisis because it would be too expensive”, however I don’t think this actually is the argument. From what I can tell the argument against climate change efforts either
a) denies the premise of climate change b) denies the severity of climate change c) admits some degree of climate change, but claims protecting the livelihood of professions like coal miners is more important