Yes, I agree with Jello. "Global Warming" is terribly political and terribly economical. It's good for business if you make the right light bulbs, the right filters, the right cleaners, and the right 'green' products.
It's a sham. The earth warms and cools on it's own. Where the glaciers are receding in Greenland, they're revealing farms where the Vikings farmed. Do you think they had big refineries and plants and SUV's? Hardly.
It really doesn't get much more foolhardy than gambling on the very future of our species just so we can continue to live an inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessarily primitive (continuing to rely on old technologies) lifestyle.
There is absolutely no reason not to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. The 'skeptics' continually complain that it will cost too much, but studies have shown that it will cost a fraction of our GDP. In essence, addressing global warming will simply slow our economic growth in the short-term while ensuring its safety in the long term.
Really it's just like buying fire insurance when you live in the middle of the forest. It's quite likely that eventually your home will be in danger from a forest fire, so you spend a bit of money in the short-term to insure yourself from a crippling financial loss in the long-term.
The 'skeptics' would have us buy a home in the middle of a dry forest without buying any insurance whilst they run around playing with matches. It's not just foolhardy to listen to them, it's downright stupid.
I don't know that I'd call it "foolhardy", since that seems to imply that people have access to enough information to make a rational decision, and that they're simply not sensible enough to make the right decision. I don't beleive that the information has been well communicated (we tolerate the distribution of way too much misimformation). It's also not clear that people have the opportunity to make a rational decision on the subject. Fear of climate change itself, or of the financial burdens that can occur from the effects and from the mitigation effrots, can create a state of cognitive dissonance in which the fearful person must adopt a belief that supports their actions. For example, they might believe that global warming is a hoax or conspiracy in order to justify their damaging lifestyle.
Since they are unable to process information rationally and they are unable to see the mechanism that puts them in this state, it's probably more charitable to consider these people as having a mental disability. They're not necessarily stupid or morally corrupt, they're just trapped by a normal human reaction to this sort of threat and the anxiety that it can create.
Availability of appropriate coping and adaptation counselling for people stuck in denial should be part of any national plan to address the issue.
"No one is stopping you from going green if that's what you believe is the right thing to do."
Not always true, now is it? Society, culture, laws, and infrastructure are designed to have us life lifestyles that are not in balance. Which means that only the most rugged off grid people, or the most wealthy can afford to life a balanced lifestyle. The rest of us are forced into the paradigm of conspicuous consumption and materialism.
"Global Warming is terribly political and terribly economical. It's good for business if you make the right light bulbs, the right filters, the right cleaners, and the right 'green' products."
And how is denying it any less economical for the people who make things that have proven time and time again to be harmful to the public health, to waste energy, and to pollute the environment in other ways than carbon dioxide? There is money to be made in the green movement, but it it a paupers pittance when compared to the amount of money at stake in keeping the status quo.
"Whether or not you are a socialist, jumping on the global warming bandwagon primarily promotes big government insinuating itself into places where it will do no good and certainly do grave harm if we do what many politicians suggest."
Again, not always. While some that are concerned about global warming believe in big federal intervention to stop it, just as many feel that the government is not the answer. For instance, the federal government gives huge subsidies from our taxes to the automotive, air travel, corporate agriculture, and fossil fuel industries. If you don't like socialism, than you should be opposing these subsidies with the same fervor that the global warming activists are. And then, when these damaging industries fall apart because they were never cost effective, and newer more efficient options take their place, everyone is happy.
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
