When speaking with people who do not agree with me on the correctness or urgency of global warming, this is the argument I traditionally make: let&#x27;s examine the worst-case scenarios. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the science, taking it seriously is a logical choice.<p>The plausible worst-case scenario of charging ahead with measures to combat climate change isn&#x27;t actually that bad, not to mention the ancillary benefits outlined by Schwarzenegger. Aggressively stimulating the renewables economy would be a death knell for the fossil-fuel industry, which could harm the overall economy (though renewables would also contribute positively). It would be disruptive to sections of the country that are dependent upon the fossil-fuel industry (coal country in Kentucky, for instance), which would be very hard on the people living there. This is certainly bad and should not be done lightly, but it&#x27;s hardly apocalyptic.<p>The plausible worst-case scenario of failing to address climate change is _really_ bad, ranging from property destruction all the way to civilizational collapse or even potentially human extinction[1]. In a world with nuclear weapons, large-scale destabilization resulting from famine, drought and loss of land to flooding is a very dangerous thing. The Earth is the only home we have, why even flirt with the possibility of disrupting our currently livable climate?<p>...and that argument doesn&#x27;t even take the scientific consensus on the existence of human-cased global warming into account.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Anoxic_event#Atmospheric_effects" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Anoxic_event#Atmospheric_effec...</a>