Existential threat means things can’t get worse (you just stop existing).

Ignoring the potential of geoengineering implies you are sure that we have a better solution which will work. I hope we don’t have to use geoengineering but I am certain the status quo of hoping renewables and batteries in the 1st world will save us is not going to work.

Threat is not certainty. If somebody is out there to kill you, you are under an existential threat, until they are caught. It's not a reason to start playing Russian roulette, saying "I'm already in danger, cannot get worse than that!"

The same logic applies to shutting down oil and gas production: if we are not certain, then why risk the downsides?

I’m not saying this is a good way to think, just that it shows the fault in your logic.

>The same logic applies to shutting down oil and gas production: if we are not certain, then why risk the downsides?

You are conflating the cost of not extracting a fraction of a fraction of current production capacity with the risk ending human existence through changing systems we do not have anything close to a full understanding of nor precise control over.

Degrees of risk matter, in fact they are the whole point of GPs logic.

I’m not conflating them, I’m trying to elicit someone to _compare_ them so we can discuss reflexively rejecting certain solutions.

If you don’t have some measure of cost / benefits / risks, how can you reject a potential solution outright?

The answer is you can’t, so if you are doing so your reflex is based on emotion rather than reason.

I was not commenting on any measures intended to stop/reverse the climate change. (I don't have enough knowledge to various probabilities).

I was just exposing a flaw in _your_ logic :-) You said:

> Existential threat means things can’t get worse

And I disagree, things can get a lot worse. You know, like replacing a threat with certainty...