Oh, humans, as a species, will survive. I don't think the race is in danger of dying out.

Our way of life? Billions of lives? Yea, those are in danger.

But the reason we have our way of lives and all these billions of lives is because of our highly effective utilisation of fossil fuels. And with those fuels humans manage to live civilised and comfortable lives in conditions ranging from temperate to tropical.

In all seriousness, if you assume the next 200 years looks anything like the last 200 years there is no forecast of the future that doesn't include billions of lives being lost and changes to people's way of life. But climate change doesn't need to be invoked; just the ongoing rise in population and the depletion of fossil fuels.

COVID-19 is the current reminder that that there are much bigger risks out there than climate.

I don't disagree that climate change is not the only threat to our way of life.

I am highly skeptical of disease being a cause. COVID-19 has killed 2,000+ people so far. It is dangerous and we have to handle it appropriately, but its simply not on the same order of magnitude.

There were a lot fewer of them. Life expectancy and standards of living were way lower. Stone age tech meant they couldn't kill each other as efficiently in war over declining resources.

Stone age tech meant they didn't have time to worry about fake crises, life was hard enough, eh? They just took the warm weather that followed the ice age and invented farming. Not bad. Resources aren't declining. Energy is more abundant than ever. Crop yields are way up. The Earth is greener and has more trees than it did just a few decades ago. Basic necessities are covered. There's no basis for alarmism.

Why do you think it's a "fake" crisis? All of the world's climate scientists (spanning multiple disciplines) are lying or exaggerating...for what exactly? More research grants? They could probably get more money by writing papers denying there's a problem.

"Things are better than ever" is a meaningless statement. The Titanic was going great until it hit that iceberg. Our lookouts have been loudly warning us of this iceberg for decades - and their predictions have been largely correct.

>All of the world's scientists are lying or exaggerating

That itself is an exaggeration. Most of the world's scientists have nothing to do with climate science.

Thanks for the pedantic hair-splitting. I'll update my comment to say "all of the world's climate scientists". But it's not a stretch to say "most scientists in general". I'd wager > 50% of academics, of any discipline, agree it's happening and we need to act.

So you see no problem with economic externalities and the drive to shorten the lifetime of all goods we produce in order to sell another one as quickly as possible? Pollution and limited resources are not a problem?

True pollution is a problem. But it's been largely solved in developed countries.

Which resources are you worried about running out?

Fresh water. Arable land. Habitable land.

Developed countries hide their pollution slightly better (no belching smokestacks or filthy rivers) but it's still there.[1]

Most people don't live in developed countries. Don't they deserve to have pollution-free living conditions too?

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Pit#Environmental_eff...

It looks like they're working on the Berkeley Pit: https://www.mtpr.org/post/montanas-berkeley-pit-water-treatm...

But yeah the developing countries do deserve it. However, it remains a complex political issue. How do you declare or enforce regulations in countries outside of our jurisdiction? You can try to convince those countries it's worth it but you can't force them to.

Tariffs and sanctions. "Tax carbon or you can't trade with us. We'll freeze your assets in our banks. We'll get our allies to do the same thing. Any company that trades with you can't do business here." It works to force compliance on many other issues.

But it only works if we've made efforts to fix our own carbon emitting economies. Before anyone makes the currently popular "why aren't you telling China and India to stop emitting" argument

> But it only works if we've made efforts to fix our own carbon emitting economies

Climate denialism in developed countries has many forms. Some of them include:

1. It's not happening

2. It's happening but it's natural

3. It's happening and it's because of human activity but it'll cost too much to fix it.

4. We could fix it but we'd be outcompeted by everyone else who doesn't. So let's not.

Tariffs and sanctions are to address #4. Rich countries absolutely must fix their economies, no question about it.

Fresh water will never run out. Specific regions on the planet will experience drought or floods from time to time but that's the way it's always been. Meanwhile look to Israel and how they've managed to build desalinization plants efficiently and now they have an abundance of fresh water where they used to have very little. Crop yields are up (more than 100% in past few decades), so arable land doesn't appear to be a problem.

I can't reply to below response but no, desalination has gotten much cheaper:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the...

They use lava rocks and some membranes to filter the salt out.

And no, we don't control the rain.

> Specific regions on the planet will experience drought or floods

And you don't think it's a problem that entirely preventable human activities are causing this? How would you feel if you lived in a drought-stricken region? The Indian subcontinent is one such region. Historically, and cumulatively, the people living there haven't contributed very much to climate change. But they're the ones that will pay a price for it.

> Meanwhile look to Israel and how they've managed to build desalinization plants efficiently

Desalinization requires a lot of energy and is capital-intensive. Even if it's cheaper than it used to be, it's not cheaper than taking fresh water out of a lake or reservoir, treating it, and piping it. Why should poor countries pay a "desal tax" for a problem they didn't cause?

Are you proposing for developed countries to fund desal plants for developing countries as compensation for causing climate change?

What you're saying is "It's not a problem for me. Tough luck if it is for you".