> Now at some point there is a market incentive to develop mining techniques that optimize for less energy consumption above all else.

The question is whether that will happen before serious consequences of climate change. While I agree that market (as well as government) incentive is likely to optimize these systems for less energy, and cleaner energy in general, humans are lazy all the way through the bell-curve. Because we developed for millions of years in a hostile world with scarce nutrition, we are inclined towards conserving nutrition and calories, thus we are still inclined mentally to be reactive more than proactive.

What I'm saying is that you might very well be right, but I am pessimistic in that I think we may react too late. Our efforts to change our ways have been, for all intents and purposes, a joke for the last 40 years.

> It is based on the wrong assumption of a static universe.

I am glad you bring up this point, although there's a flaw in it.

What I think you are saying is that the universe is full of change that the myopic human brain struggles to comprehend in its short lifetime. This is something I frequently have difficulty communicating to people.

For instance, one of my long time interests is in native plants and foraging. The truth about "native plants" is that little of it approaches a definition that can be considered truly "native". What's native to a person depends on their perspective. Native since when? Since humans showed up? Since before European settlers? Since the Pleistocene? What people think of as native plants are often as recent to an area as the 1400's or were carried by birds and critters from other parts of the world at some point in prehistory.

To your point, the world has always been changing long before we showed up, and attempting to keep it in suspended animation may be a losing game.

But many in the native plant community (yes, there are people simply interested in native flora) won't have that perspective, let alone consider it intellectually. I left those communities because my view that not every non-native plant is "invasive" or "noxious" was considered heresy. Because the world has always been in flux, I generally don't believe that living things introduced in our lifetime must be eradicated to maintain the image of the world we are familiar with. There are of course exceptions, but to many zealots every plant they don't like must be an exception. It doesn't even matter if an introduced plant doesn't pose a threat to surrounding plants and animals. They want it gone because reasons.

In some ways, climate change can be viewed in the same way. While I absolutely think that climate change caused by humanity is an alarming concern, I have trouble discussing the issue with people because they have the "static universe" world view. In their minds, our current Earth is the one that was always meant to exist, which is pretty anthropocentric. They believe that, at least until recently, we had just the right amount of glaciers, just the right amount of snow in the winter, and just the right amount of heat in the summer to melt the snow caps for drinking water and give us a nice tan; it's just as God intended!

The tricky thing about climate change is that a certain amount of it was destined to happen whether we were blowing CO2 into the atmosphere or not. This fact (and it is a fact) doesn't change my view that we should be concerned about the warming of the glove, but it's often ignored by people. They read facts about melting glaciers and simply conclude, based on their limited earthly experience, that glaciers shouldn't melt and that glaciers melting are necessarily a sign of doom. Ironically, some of them are still opposed to nuclear energy or seriously investing in solar technology, but that's neither here nor there.

On the other hand, some use the fluctuating-universe theory to rationalize their lack of concern. To them, all change is what God intended, figuratively speaking. It's the mirror image of the supposed counterargument.

There are solutions that should satisfy both sides of the coin. Will they ever agree to use those solutions proactively? It seems we are at a political impasse where one's position on these issues primarily depends on where their personality and temperament naturally drifts them towards rather by highly conscious choice. (arguments around free-will notwithstanding)