eclectron wrote:I have already told you that moral judgments are you who create them with what remains of your conscience.
It's a problem between you and you.
I am only revealing what you refuse to see.
"Nobody has a monopoly" is very practical for avoiding responsibility for the consequences of his actions, so that we do nothing, we say nothing.
When we know, we have the choice, either we are a resistance, or we are a collaborator.
excuse me but you can explain to me a little better what there is of "moral" or "immoral" to say that
a) the amount of available fossil reserves is insufficient to cause catastrophic warming
b) at the time of the deglaciations there were other important forcings so the ratio ∆T / ∆ (ln [CO2]) was not the same as now
Even though I am racking my brains in all directions, I do not see what is "immoral" in these proposals. Whether they can be right or wrong, that's okay, I can see it, but whether you are "collaborator" or "resistant" depending on whether you believe it or not, I don't understand.
But listening to you I understand a little better how we were able to condemn Galileo for having said that the Earth was spinning, that was to be judged also "immoral" at the time ...
And what is the right decision to take with your vision deliberately focused on RCA when you know full well that the problem is larger and that RCA or not, we must act?
but I never denied that the fossils had to be replaced! I just said it was not worth doing without more than necessary. But they will have to be replaced, that's for sure.
So now let's talk about "action" and "consequences of action".
Global GDP is around $ 70 billion for about 000 Gtep consumed per year, which makes about $ 12 produced per toe.
If we admit that fossils are clearly more productive than alternative energies (which is all in all quite logical because if this were not the case, we do not understand why we bother to use them so much and why can't manage without it), that means that each toe not consumed will cost a significant fraction of that, so thousands of dollars. How much exactly we don't know, but if we want to reduce fossils by hundreds of billions of tons, it costs hundreds of trillions of dollars, maybe millions of billions of dollars.
It's not nothing anyway.
So let's say it's worth it. It means that if we use them anyway, it would cost humanity even more. OK if that caused the disappearance of humanity the cost would be even more enormous. But you have to be sure of that. And for this to be justified, the costs associated with the use of these fossils must ALSO be in the order of hundreds of trillions of dollars.
The problem ... is that it is not at all the figures that we find. The costs of externalities per t of fossil fuel, which serves as the basis for the cost of a carbon tax, is not $ 6000 per tonne, it is rather around $ 100. A few hundred if you push the envelope very far, but not $ 6000. This means that the cost of externalities (including RC) is only a few% of the wealth produced by fossils. Note that this estimate is not ridiculous, if the costs of fossils were much greater than the wealth produced, it means that we would spend most of the GDP repairing the damage of fossils which is absolutely not the case of course. All the problems are of the order of% of GDP, this is perfectly consistent with the estimate above.
In other words, what should be "absolute certainty" ... is wrong by a factor of several tens. Everything shows that the wealth produced by fossils is MUCH GREATER than the cost of the damage they cause. Which is a very natural explanation for the obvious finding that everyone continues to use them and have no intention of stopping while there is.
If you think that this reasoning is wrong, you have the right, but you have to be VERY SURE OF YOURSELF, you have to be VERY SURE YOU ARE RIGHT, because if it is you who is messing up, it is a error to several hundred trillions of dollars. And it is not theoretical, it is wealth which will not go to all those who would have benefited from it, that is to say the poor countries. If you mess up, you are keeping billions of people in misery who might otherwise have lived better.
Are you really really sure that the "morals" are on your side? without a little doubt?
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)
Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
