Better safe than sorry. If the risk is significant, and the impact is big, it is sensible to have plan to address risks. You probably have many expenses you hope you never need, like all sorts of insurances. And even if it turns out climate changes was less impactful than forcasted, change sparks innovation and creates economic opportunity. E.g, these days electrucs cars are better than fossil fuel cars (my wife wont let me lease another fossil fuel car, she likes the way the electric one drives much better), and solar electricity is cheaper than fossil electricity.
There are a vast number of scientists in agreement with each other that it is not a nothingburger.
It takes nothing but stark intentional ignorance to make a statement like yours.
It absolutely boggles my mind at the suggestion that green energy is all profit seeking, as if the counterparties in big oil aren't also just as or more interested in maintaining status quo in the opposite direction. Yet I never see someone who expresses ideas like this recognize or acknowledge that.
Switching to renewables and mass transit can improve the quality of life for people who live in urban environments because it makes the air they breath cleaner.
This is a major reason why developing countries are leapfrogging the west on this sort of stuff. Massive S.E. Asian cities are experiencing tremendous health benefits from the green revolution.
It's mostly built atop problem shifting. For example, Seattle fought to send their compost and build wind farms in eastern Washington - where it was in someone else's backyard.
Similar to battery recycling - which might end up being "recycled" by some 8 year old kid in SE Asia with a sledgehammer.
At worst the same way that performing CPR on a man with a heart attack is problem shifting, or feeding the hungry only makes them hungry again in the future.
Wind turbines are not problems. They are opportunities. Notice that thr specious bullshit problems cited with wind turbines go away in rural areas once farmers are the ones making money on them.
> It's mostly built atop problem shifting. For example, Seattle fought to send their compost and build wind farms in eastern Washington - where it was in someone else's backyard.
This is a silly opinion to have. It's like complaining that reinforcing police presence in an area is problem shifting because you'll still have crime taking place somewhere else. It's an attempt to frame any action as a false dilemma that forces an all-or-nothing logic based on specious reasoning.
If it doesn't turn into a nothingburger *, can we get back the glaciers, the climate and the people who died to help your own cronies get some more billions?
* (that is, if there's not a global conspiracy of pedo-scientists set to harm poor oil tycoons)
