Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
The reason for that debate and the debate about what should be done is hardly inconsequential though; there are those who would change our entire economic system to address the problem. For some reason some of us think that's a big deal and think that these issues ought to be carefully examined before we do things like that. As soon as you even hint at it though you get shouted down as a "science denier" or something like that.
|
I have no problem with this argument in theory. However so many non-believers and people who have no ideas on how to fix the problem simply use this as a smoke screen. The argument goes round and round in circles and nothing gets solved.
It's a common tactic used by those in power that don't want to see changes to their industry. It happened with tobacco, it's happening with fossil fuels and global warming now. First deny the science as long as you can. Then slowly agree with tiny point after tiny point after you can no longer deny. Then take as much time as you can to come up with a solution. Propose doom and gloom scenarios (in this case to the economy) to drag it out as long as you can.
Prolong the debate. Prolong the debate. Prolong the debate. All the while to protect industry conditions as long as you possibly can.
The thing with is, with this problem, it's only getting worse every single year we debate.
The first big papers on global warming where written in the early 70's. Permeation into popular culture was there in the late 80's. A desire to do something about it from the public was there in the early 90's.
That was over 25 years ago!
We've had time to change industry and adapt the economy. We've had time for fossil fuel companies to get on board and transition slowly. We've had time to fix this problem with less damage to our systems while also fixing it earlier reducing the amount we'd actually have to change our economies.
We haven't because fossil fuel companies didn't want to do that earlier than they had to. Now the problem is bigger and the change will have to be more rapid. Period.
If you truly mean your argument as written with nothing behind it then yes. It is correct. However, I am so sick of that argument because it constantly comes from the wrong places and wrong people and it's just made things worse.
To finish, we need to start changing now. No matter what the damage to the economy. The simple truth is, the economy (oh, and the world) will be hurt far worse if we do nothing. Massive loss of urban areas, destruction of arable land, mass migration, poverty, war. You think these things are going to harm the economy less than fixing the energy economy to be more green?
And as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread. There are options right now that aren't nearly as doom and gloom as some believe. There are countries on the right track and there are success stories. And most of all, there is PROFIT to be made by early adopters. There is money in a new sector of the economy that is ready to boom.
And if we should have some hiccups along the way. Fine. That's normal. That's happens even when your not trying to change a sector of the economy, never mind when you are. The important thing is to move forward and stop the pointless arduous debate.
Don't anyone fool themselves. There is nothing noble in prolonging this debate anymore. It's protectionism pure and simple.