See a discussion about it here.
Even if global warming, climate change, and/or the impending doom to the human species is just a matter of "global fear mongering," there is no denying that the economy sucks. Why not support the solutions to climate change when the benefits to doing so are so huge?
I just don't get why some people are so ardently opposed to the topic of climate change.
1 comment:
People are avoident of the "climate change" because there are supporting facts on either side of the fence. In the one hand, I am a human and thus it would seemingly be in my best interest to support the promotion of a "greener" society. Where I live the local government has dropped the recycling program, maybe about 15 years ago because they recognized it was not economicly viable. Fast forward now, I agree that the "green revolution" is causing the economy to do a zombie dance as new products that perpetuate the green setiment. (1980's forget the specific year, Honda released an automobile that had a fuel efficiency of 55 mpg, again in mid 1990's released the insight that got 76 mpg, now the best they can do is 32 mpg (civic) and 50 mpg (hybrid civic) this unfortunately was bad for the oil industry so it supressed the mass production and acceptance of these vehicles. 30 years later we really havent changes to a greener attitude) So why now? Why green now? Are economy sucks because heavy industry would rather be in a 3rd world country where there are limited pollution restraints, than be in the US with heavy fines and in inability to produce. SO where is the balance? Increased economy or the environment? Recycling? What about stop people from using products that are disposable, (razors, diapers,... i could go on) My issue with "global warming" is that there has been no conclusive evidence that supports the change. Temperatures constantly fluxuate, ( in 2008 June BBC stated that the planetary average was decreasing indicative of global cooling, but i dont support that either) Humans are a speck on the history of a 4 billion year old rock. To suggest that we have mastered the ability to interpret data over 150 + or - years that proves a global warming trend is ludacris. Lets look at history, 20,000 years ago most of northern US was under 1 mile of ice, fast forward now we are where we're at. . .no ice. The industrial revolution produced volumes of pollutants, but do we really have the ability to interpret plantetary trends? The Earths surface has gone trhough so many different changes, Ice, lava, water Europa, Pangea to what we have now.
There is too little empirical data to suggest anything, its a guess at best- driving or country further into a debt that seemingly is unrecoverable. Ethenol made from corn without government support would be at $4.00 + a gallon, but now it is competative with economic stipends and support. It is not cost effective but we funnel millions if not billions of dollars into a uneconomic energy source, to support the green revolution.
Post a Comment