6 ms·

I'm not the one claiming there is an easy solution. I think Bill Gates also said the people claiming there is an easy solution is the biggest problem with fight

I'm not the one claiming there is an easy solution. I think Bill Gates also said the people claiming there is an easy solution is the biggest problem with fighting climate change, so maybe read his essays on the topic.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
But you claimed that protesters demanding a solution were a problem, or that they were unjustified because they couldn't offer a solution. Why would people have to present a solution in order to demand for their future to not be destroyed? After all, "solving climate change" is technologically a solved problem. Humanity has all the technological knowledge to switch to carbon-free energy production. The problem are the costs of that switch based on current technology. But if we can't reduce the costs further, that still does not invalidate the demand of protesters who don't want to be stuck with paying the massive price of having to deal with a broken ecosystem later. It's still a perfectly justified demand that current generations pay in order to avoid costs for future generations.
- bubblewrap 7y ago
  No I said the protestors claiming there is an easy solution is the problem. They believe everything could just be switched over to renewables at no cost, in fact, they think it would be cheaper to do so. You do the same. You claim it is "technically a solved problem". It really isn't. You are just naive about "renewable energy".
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    > No I said the protestors claiming there is an easy solution is the problem. Source? > They believe everything could just be switched over to renewables at no cost, Source? > in fact, they think it would be cheaper to do so. So, how do you know that is not the case? (And no, pretending that climate change won't cause any costs is not how this works. If your stance is that climate change won't have any costs, that's on you to demonstrate.) > You do the same. You claim it is "technically a solved problem". It really isn't. So, which part of it is not technically solved?

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago

But you claimed that protesters demanding a solution were a problem, or that they were unjustified because they couldn't offer a solution. Why would people have to present a solution in order to demand for their future to not be destroyed? After all, "solving climate change" is technologically a solved problem. Humanity has all the technological knowledge to switch to carbon-free energy production. The problem are the costs of that switch based on current technology. But if we can't reduce the costs further, that still does not invalidate the demand of protesters who don't want to be stuck with paying the massive price of having to deal with a broken ecosystem later. It's still a perfectly justified demand that current generations pay in order to avoid costs for future generations.

bubblewrap 7y ago
No I said the protestors claiming there is an easy solution is the problem. They believe everything could just be switched over to renewables at no cost, in fact, they think it would be cheaper to do so. You do the same. You claim it is "technically a solved problem". It really isn't. You are just naive about "renewable energy".
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  > No I said the protestors claiming there is an easy solution is the problem. Source? > They believe everything could just be switched over to renewables at no cost, Source? > in fact, they think it would be cheaper to do so. So, how do you know that is not the case? (And no, pretending that climate change won't cause any costs is not how this works. If your stance is that climate change won't have any costs, that's on you to demonstrate.) > You do the same. You claim it is "technically a solved problem". It really isn't. So, which part of it is not technically solved?