How much money do you think the United States has spent since 1945 on the Cold War? Sometimes they ask this question then from the back of the audience comes in answer ‘billions and billions‘. A huge underestimate – billions and billions. The amount of money that the United States has spent on the Cold War since 1945 is approximately 10 trillion dollars. Trillion, that’s the big one with the ‘T’. What could you buy with 10 trillion dollars? The answer is: You could buy everything in the United States except the land. Everything. Every building, truck, bus, car, boat, plane, pencil, baby’s diaper. Everything in the United States except the land, that’s what we have spent on the Cold War.

So, now let me ask: How certain was it that the Russians were going to invade? Was it 100% certain? Guess not since they never invaded. What if it was only let say 10% certain? What would advocates of big military buildup have said? We must be prudent. It’s not enough to count on only the most likely circumstance. If the worst happens and it’s really extremely dangerous for us we have to prepare for that. Remote contingencies if there is serious enough have the prepared for. It’s classic military thinking – you prepare for the worst case.

And so now, I ask my friends who are comfortable with that argument, including the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, why doesn’t that same argument apply to Global Warming. You don’t think it’s 100% likely? Fine. You are entitled to think that. If it’s only a small probability of it happening since the consequences are so serious, don’t you have to make some serious investment to prevent it or mitigate it? I think there’s a double standard of argument working and I don’t think we should permit it.

— Carl Sagan, An excerpt of a speech given on the 2nd of September in 1990 at the 5th Emerging Issues Forum at NCSU

Carl Sagan Keynote Speech at Emerging Issues Forum

YouTube
@ErikUden @hosford42 The problem with arguments like this is that the person you are arguing with is in it for the money, not the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle worked to justify the Cold War, so it was used, to immense profit. The same principle works against continue profit in oil, so it is no longer the right argument to use. The point is to keep the cash cow going, not to prevent disaster.
@abhayakara @ErikUden Consider who is reading this, though. It may not work on the person being actually addressed, but the rest of us can see the hypocrisy. And if enough of us take notice and apply pressure, we can change what is profitable for those in power. So posting these sorts of things is far from pointless.

@hosford42 @ErikUden The thing is, we are already aware of the problem. We already want to fix it. We are even aware of the hypocrisy. That’s not the knob that needs to be turned.

We need to be activated toward effective action. Not just activated. What is the effective action? What is the next step to take? That’s what we should be talking about.

@abhayakara @ErikUden I'm on board. Let's talk about it. What are the most effective actions we can take, right here, right now? Are there organizations we can join to help us coordinate those actions for maximal effectiveness? If not, we need to create them.

@hosford42 @abhayakara @ErikUden
1. Participate in a climate demonstration at least once a month.
2. Vote for the party/candidate that has the best and most radical climate politics where you live, on all political levels.
3. Talk about your fear of climate change in different situations, for example with friends and colleagues.
4. Try to reduce your own emissions as much as possible.

In this order.

@ahltorp @hosford42 @ErikUden

Unfortunately these are all things we've been doing since 1970 that haven't worked:

Moreover, several of them are actually tactics that have made us less effective.

Protests can be useful, mostly because they are a way to foster movements. They are effective when they gather popular support. They usually are used to discredit the movement, because they are so easy to misrepresent in the news. One person breaking a bottle and it's a violent protest.

@ahltorp @hosford42 @ErikUden

Voting only works if you are tactical about it. Voting does two things: it makes people who aren't really on your side but aren't against you take you seriously (if you do it right). And if you vote in primaries (in the U.S.), it allows you to change who is actually running in the general election, and then you might actually get to vote for someone who doesn't suck.

@ahltorp @hosford42 @ErikUden

But e.g. third parties in the U.S., which is not really a democracy, absolutely can't win elections. The whole system is set up to prevent that. Parties sometimes use third party voters to draw votes away from the other party. So voting third party in the U.S. at least is always a net lose. It literally can't do anytihng except the opposite of what you want.

@abhayakara @hosford42 @ErikUden I absolutely don’t have a cure for US people being so US centric.
@ahltorp @hosford42 @ErikUden Other countries have other problems, but the general flow seems similar. Eg I’m less worried about Geert Wilders becoming minister-president than about Trump, because the system there is less stupid, but the system there still managed to keep Rutte in power for way too long. Why? Probably pretty similar reasons to why the US keeps electing the same kind of leaders.