While I agree society needs to change, this vision of how it should change -- fewer globalized goods, no mass production, and so on -- well if that's my only option I'll take the climate change thanks. It's going to be dangerous for people, but so is what you suggest, seeing as how modern people owe a lot of their health and life enjoyment to the things you'd ban.

It is easy to play russian roulette when the gun is pointed at somebody else's head isn't it?

You say you would rather risk climate change than let go of your current comforts. How awfully convenient for you that the main effects will not be felt by yourself.

Rich people (most HN posters included) both benefit most from globalized goods AND are able to shelter themselves from the effects of climate change anyway. You probably won't have your home and rice fields permanently flooded or crops more and more years of drought, you probably won't need to find a new home. A lot of poor people will. And judging by politics today, when that happens, the rich countries who have benefited the most from burning fossil fuels will shut the refugees out rather than welcome them in.

Climate change is a terrible thing, but the effects will be felt very unevenly.

Granted it will be felt unevenly by why do you seem so gleeful to put all of this on the rich? Mass production and globalize trade makes medicines for poor people and makes all goods more affordable for low incomes. Also, what's with assuming everyone on HN is rich? Everyone loses without those things. You propose a guaranteed terrible thing for everyone. Are you trying to improve the situation or just try to talk rich people into self-flagellating?

Why I put it all on the rich? Here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_...

Basically, correlate that with a map of GDP per capita.

But to be completely honest I just got fired up as I found (and still find) your comment in bad taste. If you are a rice farmer on the coast of Bangladesh or similar then I apologize. One can argue back and forth about economy, but altering the sea level without compensation to those who loose their land is not fair.

As for what I really believe I think a lot of mass production can be kept, and also noone is proposing to scrap ships or global trade overnight. Proposals for fixing global warming abound and is generally to gradually tax for emissions caused (ie put price tag on externality). This will then drive the economy towards less polluting alternatives where it is easiest.

That is not a "proposed terrible thing for everyone" in the same way that when OPEC doubles the oil price the economy does move on and adapt.

E.g. in my country of Norway some fish gets sent to China for packaging and then it gets shipped back where it came from. Eliminating that indirectly through increased shipping costs means some increased price in frozen fish to the consumer, but also more local jobs.

In the end "end of global trade and mass production" is extremely simplistic. It is all about how well the world economy will do with or without.

And there are studies on that, so that either of us don't have to rely on our gut. And they show the effects of climate change on the global economy to be devastating when it finally hits. It is not the lesser evil at all.

Ships release more sulphur oxides than cars, but vastly less CO2.