Dead Comment
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/23/magazine/clim...
The least destructive time to take action is right now.
Most likely you'll see gradual migrations over the next 100 or so years away from coastal areas, probably not too much larger than typical migrant and infrastructure turnover.
Please stop relying on journalism to make your decisions regarding climate change. It's pure dogma by completely ascientific liberal arts majors.
If you read the IPCC reports yourself (they're huge but you can read the introductory summaries) they're much less certain about the future. Meanwhile alarmism has a real cost now, if you foolishly allow it to influence policy.
And on the subject of habitability, why is it that media rarely, if ever, runs stories regarding the increase in arable land that comes with thawing permafrost? How much habitable land will be gained from climate change?
And just to emphasize the short sightedness of "banning" fossil fuels as you originally proposed, good luck getting food and medical equipment (and pretty much anything else) to the hundreds of millions of people living in cities without diesel for trucks.
Chevron is worth 180B. If the millionaires banded together to control 50.1% of Chevron, they could oust the board, permanently destroy all of its oil production and distribution capabilities, and convert its oil fields into a permanently undrillable status.
Then, they could sell off the remaining assets (except the mineral rights), and only lose most of their money. Heck, the resulting shuttered corporation would probably be eligible for carbon credits.
Even better, instead of buying the oil reserves, they could buy out the corporations that own patents and factories for things like fracking equipment and critical car components.
Anti-trust would probably get in the way, but the global airbag industry has revenue in the single-digit billions. A band of 100,000 millionaires could easily acquire them all and charge $80,000 extra (per car) for bags headed to gas powered vehicles.
Stop bending over backwards to excuse antisocial behavior. Not all cultural practices are positive and need to be celebrated.
Edit: it's complicated: https://www.pastemagazine.com/drink/alcohol-history/prohibit...
Dead Comment
I'm not personally offended but I am bothered by the casual double standard.
My biggest issue with climate alarmism is that sources universally consider only the negative outcomes of climate change. Thawing permafrost also opens up an enormous amount of arable and habitable land. Some species will benefit from warmer temperatures and extended ranges (and that's not just insects).
Not to mention that neither the change or the rate is unprecedented according to geologic data.
The world is very unlikely to end, human migration and economic impact will be gradual (≈100) years, and people need to consider that mitigation of climate change at this point is also not "free" when they ask people to go vegan (yeah, right).
What specifically makes them captive? Why do you believe that? Are the audiences of other extremely popular websites also captive? Why or why not?
Perhaps you meant this hyperbolically but I do not believe it to be an exaggeration.
>What specifically makes them captive
They are captive because of a combination of their ignorance and the network effect. If all of your friends are on Facebook for example you'll have to leave them behind if you delete your account.