Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy89
I wonder how many people are going to die/suffer as a result of our proposed 'solutions' to global warming vs. how many would die/suffer as a result of global warming. That's a more important perspective. Then of course there's the "Epic fail" scenerio where we kill the world's economy but fail to stop global warming because all it takes to compensate the other way for the world's sacrifices is a non-cooperating China and a foot-dragging United States and Third World. Then you'll get to see how many people die and/or suffer if both scenarios played out at the same time.
Ruining the world's economy isn't something you just do because it's fun or as some kind of contingency plan for an unpredictable future. Even doing something as simple and small as subsidize ethanol production has already caused food shortages and added an unecessary wrinkle into the world economy. If I'm going to vote for or take part in anything that "combats" global warming that also has some negative side effects, it's going to be because I have better information to go on than a bunch of computer model jockies supported by government grants.
|
That is such a short term way of looking at things.
The economy will recover. There was a time before oil, there will be a time after.
The point driving economy is supposed to be innovation.
Not oligopolies and lobbyists.
Even if in a big shift there are some hard times they will last for a generation. If we don't fix our bigger problems with climate and overpopulation, they will last for the rest of our being on this planet.