/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8544408
>fact: the Earth's climate is changing at a rate that is dangerous for the planet's ecosystem, largely due to human emission of CO2 into the atmosphere. If emissions are curbed, then this may reduce the rate of climate change. The exact costs of climate change are unclear, but they look highly negative for humans.
The debate really wouldn't look quite different imo. Here's what I propose each group's positions would be on the matter. If you identify with one of these, and you feel that I incorrectly stated your position, please let me know.

>libertarian perspective: once the costs of climate change are high enough, then consumers and businesses will naturally move away from fossil fuels. We shouldn't intervene before the market consensus reaches this equilibrium.
>progressive perspective: climate change hurts the least powerful of us, therefore we should aggressively move off of fossil fuels and fund the development of new forms of energy

>classical liberal perspective: we should create a system that encourages the use of other forms of energy, incentivizing a move to cleaner energy types
>conservative: we should focus on adapting to climate change, rather than trying to dismantle proven systems in an effort to accomplish something that might not even be possible.

>leftist: We should make people to move to different types of energy, by force if necessary
>rightist: we should make sure that successful businesses aren't punished by moving to new forms of energy, regardless of other effects

>>7682109
Thanks Obama