Quote:
Originally Posted by Cube Inmate
To tack on one more thought... the climate-change activist method of making this a "moral" issue further widens the gap I mentioned above. Their attempts to make me feel ashamed about my lifestyle (especially when it's hypocrites like Suzuki) also provokes an over-reaction. Consider two approaches:
"Pacific atoll is at risk of drowning...would you be willing to pay an extra $0.10/litre to help prevent this from happening?"
"Well, maybe. But I want to see that money carefully accounted for, and invested in Canada to work on technological development, not sent to some banana-republic slush fund."
vs.
"Pacific atoll is at risk of drowning because of your lavish lifestyle. Since you have no conscience, we're going to tax your gas, ban your air conditioner, and pay $100B to Tonga so they can cope with what we've done to them."
"Eff you and eff them. Let them drown..."
If these people would start treating this as a practical problem, rather than some quasi-religious moral imperative, there could be less extremism both ways.
|
Always a classic line of argument on climate change.
"The reason I don't support acting on climate change is because the people who want to see us act haven't done a good enough job of convincing me."
Or,
"I don't think we should act on climate change (the most important threats to our civilization) because I don't like David Suzuki."
Completely assinine.