Michael Hardner

The tough thing to assess is whether social progress is a thing. I have seen some make the case that we are more violent than in the past but any message on those themes is imbued in a political light.

Pretty much everyone I know takes no side on this. I'm not surprised by any of the news I have read on this war, the only thing that surprised me is that Israel didn't anticipate the initial attack.

Of course nobody is 'independent' but it should be said that this IFR group is said to be funded by petroleum industry. That said, the US outlay is far beyond what the Boston Group indicates would be necessary, taken as a % of G7 Gross Domestic Product average. I would submit that this paper is a good example of what I'm looking for in this thread: a list of criteria that we can agree upon, to determine the timing/priority/resourcing for Climate Change mitigation. They are looking at wind and solar and not seeing a business case. Examining the cases is for another thread. So far we have a few examples of what we need to look at for the discussion.

I think I see where you are going but 'proof' isn't required to act against a perceived risk or threat. Safety, as an example, comes to mind as an analogy: you don't need proof that an accident is going to happen to take safety measures. Another angle is that large complex phenomenon can't be 'proved' in the way a mathematical theorem is. You can't 'prove' smoking causes lung cancer, for example

1. They probably use permanent staff for dog-simple tasks. 2. They likely dedicate certain permanent staff to certain types of work, and consultants for others, ie. tech. I had a discussion with a neighbour and we agreed that civilians of all kinds make bad decisions with regards to tech staffing. The government is atrocious. Delivery is owned by 'Deputy Ministers'. Can you name a single one ? They need to seed a bunch of private/crown companies to do work and slowly migrate over to that model. Canada has a culture of incompetence and we hate working in this country, IMO.

I should have said "if" we spent that much. No idea what the real number is. This thread is more about how we would approach the economic discussion at a meta level. Maybe looking at the progress made by those sources is relevant here, though. Do you have anything ?

Like it says above 1%-2%. Now if you tell someone we're spending HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS... they will likely need to take a chair and have a seat...

Not really experts, more like engaged members of the public explaining in detail what they would accept in terms of framework discussions. Good question, but the high-level summary says we spend 1 to 2 percent of GDP on this, which is about $500 billion to $1 trillion for the G7.

There's nothing in this assessment, that I quoted, that is panicked or provides a moral plea. It's a strict economic assessment, looking at costs and benefits. For those of you who decry environmental movements for hysterical And unrealistic disaster cheddar, my question is: is this kind of sober and numbers-based analysis more what you're looking for? Again, This is a meta discussion. I'm asking what kind of discussion would bring more people into engagement.

The purpose of this thread is to initiate discussions around how we would assess frameworks for mitigating climate change. There are other threads that discuss whether climate change is happening, causes, etc. That is not this thread. Nor is the intention to make the economic case itself. Instead, I would like a discussion on how we would collectively assess an approach: what are the thresholds for return on investment, what are the trade-offs, what is the timing for change. Here's a starting point, an assessment by the the Boston Consulting Group: https://www.bcg.com/press/12march2025-economic-case-climate-investment There is a strong case for investing in climate mitigation and adaptation based on the severe economic consequences of failure alone. Allowing global warming to reach 3°C by 2100 could reduce cumulative economic output by 15% to 34%. Alternatively, investing 1% to 2% in mitigation and adaptation would limit warming to 2°C, reducing economic damages to 2% to 4%. This net cost of inaction is equivalent to 11% to 27% of cumulative GDP—equivalent to three times global health care spending, or eight times the amount needed to lift the world above the global poverty line by 2100. These are among the findings of the Boston Consulting Group (BCG), Cambridge Judge Business School, and the University of Cambridge’s climaTraces Lab report

Otherwise if you can quote me on something that I say beyond what Harper said, I'd be glad to look at that and even retract if I misspoke. Cheers.

Well that goes well beyond what I'm trying to push. So can we close off on this point?

1. 2. Points taken I will add that if you purport to care about poverty then you should honestly care about inequality levels also. Just saying. Next we can research the economic case for Climate Change mitigation.

Nothing new here.

1. Ok, I would say they're both a drag on productivity but we're squabbling on this. It means nothing to the overall discussion: we agree. 2. It has had an impact. Remains to be seen if it's a failure

The evidence is there. We already know why you don't accept it. Nothing new in this post.

Ok. I understand your position.

1. The issue and fact don't justify the cost means aggregate coat not consumer cost. Yes, they're related. 2. Research never stops. 3. Yes we're talking about this.

Insult, followed by restating your opinion yet again with no actual evidence to discuss.

Stephen Harper speech in Berlin 2007: "In the interests of time, allow me to focus my remarks this afternoon on the fight against climate change, perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today. Canada may be a small contributor to global warming – our greenhouse gas emissions represent just 2% of the earth’s total – but we owe it to future generations to do whatever we can to address this world problem". https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2007/06/prime-minister-stephen-harper-calls-international-consensus-climate-change.html

We know you're not buying it, but you're not longer posting why that is. Maybe every time you feel like posting an insult or name-call post an actual reason?

1. Ok, well you are talking about GDP it seems. 2. Research never stops. 3. We're talking about when to switch energy sources.

1. I'll start putting all of these types of responses under 'ridiciulous criteria for action ' 2. Insult, again. We're running out of substantive discussion points...

1. They have produced accurate results. Compelling is a personal and subjective opinion. I think you've described the criteria you're looking for, and to it's not practical. 2. That wasn't my point. 3. My point was your name-calling reveals a lack of arguments. 4. You're revisiting an old point. You said something like you want to wait until disaster is imminent before we act. 5. Not relevant.

1. I'm not. I'm trying to get to the core of your concern. 2. I'm not asking that.