Are you really arguing we go to war with every country who doesn't stop using fossil fuels?
> beats dying in a climate apocalypse
I'm 100% for paying more to switch to 100% renewable energy, but none of the effects of climate change [0] will in any way result in an apocalyptic future.
The NASA effects are the Disney version. As many countries have already found (and many will discover) you can get an "apocalyptic future" with seemingly small changes.
Changes pile up beyond the immediate ecological impact -- e.g. droughts and climate disasters mean more immigration, tension between neighborhooding countries, wars for resources (if wars of oil where bad, wait for wars for water), increased lack of global collaboration and so on...
What countries have experienced an "apocalyptic future" due to climate change seeing as you are smarter than NASA?
> if wars of oil were bad, wait for wars for water
How! I am flabbergasted you think the trillion dollar market for oil will be usurped by water. Pretty much all cities are based around water sources (rivers usually).
Note that the latter part is an ad-hominem, and what it puts forward (that I'm "smarter than NASA") was nowhere in my message (not even implied). So I might not be "smarter than NASA", but you (or at least your comment) are ruder than needed.
As to the point I made. NASA presents the Disney version for a lot of reasons, not because of lack of smart people there. Two main ones:
One is that they are a government agency, and need to be political (e.g. balance the pressure from those that discard the climate impact altogether and "meet them in the middle").
Second, is that in such a public pronouncement they tend to be conservative and err on the side of caution.
As for the countries that have already experienced an "apocalyptic future":
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/five-pac...
Here's another:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/07/24/pakistan...
And the migrant crisis that affects tens of millions (and a project 1 billion until 2050) is strongly affected by climate change already...
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/07/10/disease-flood...
Who said you can't use oil when bombing to enforce no-oil use, if you need to?
Humans are surely no dumb computers taking all instructions literally, and can differentiate between one use (to enforce a rule) of oil, vs another (the industrial, transport, etc use you want to ban).
Who can say that you can't use oil that way? Whoever's going to bomb you for using oil. (Or did you assume that you were always going to be the enforcer, and never the enforced-upon?)
"We get to use oil for when we think we should, but we'll bomb you if you use it" sure smells like hypocrisy to me.
I didn't make any such assumptions: just that someone can enforce no-use-of-oil upon others.
And it doesn't have to be hypocritical either. To answer your other protest:
>"We get to use oil for when we think we should, but we'll bomb you if you use it" sure smells like hypocrisy to me.
Only in the same sense (and I already gave a similar example), locking people up against their will is bad and punishable, but not when the police does it.
If the enforcer only uses oil to enforce no regular oil use, then they're totally non hypocritical.
Besides the whole question is contrived, in the way the Liar's paradox is. "Yeah, what I just said about always lying is meta and excluded from my lying: I only lie when I say non-meta statements" is enough for this case...
I didn't suggest I personally do it, and I don't have the means anyway.
>Or who appointed your country to be the judge of other countries?
Notice how I didn't mention a particular country. Much less mine.
First, obviously, if there was a single country that wanted to do it, and if it had the might, nobody had to appoint them.
But it could be equally well that an extended alliance, or the UN itself, could form a force to do the policing.
The police didn't start out having authority either. Some nation state by its might (or the good will of another) gained sovereignty, formed a police force, and had some elites write the laws and give it authority. Then they allowed the populace to periodically vote, but with the police and the overall system already in place (and not allowed to be contested in its foundations unless another force -eg a rebellion- replaces it with might).
Or, you know, that group gets thrown to prison or bombed, and problem solved, how about that?
>Second, if we stop using oil in engines, guess what? It’ll go into lubes, and plastics, and other forms. We have a material we know no better alternative for.
Plastics compared to oil energy is a tiny percentage (which, still has its own problems).
But even if we had to do without both, and without modern conveniences, like plastics, and carbon fiber, and tons of others, and e.g. go back to a 1900 lifestyle, it still beats dying in a climate apocalypse (and returning to a 1900 B.C. lifestyle).