Quote:
Originally Posted by FireFly
As evidenced in Britain, economic growth CAN coincide with environmentally friendly measures.
"By 2003 Britain's CO2 emissions had fallen to 14 per cent below what they were in 1990, bring the 20 per cent reduction required by 2010 within the nation's grasp.... 'There are immense business opportunities in sustainable growth and moving to a low carbon economy', a view borne out by the 36 per cent expansion in national economic growth during the period emissions dropped 15 per cent." - The Weather Makers p. 247
The trump card that all governments put out about such measures being detrimental to the economy is hogwash. Did banning CFCs hurt? How about asbestos? Regardless of the potential economic impacts of control emissions, OUR ENVIRONMENT CANNOT SUSTAIN LIFE THE WAY THINGS ARE. So you think that to save a few dollars we should kill everything off? Good plan. It's not just the temperature global warming affects. It's life. Crops die from both drought and flooding, animals die from the death of crops, mountain animals move to higher and higher ground so they can be within their sustainable limits. People can put on and take off clothes. Plants and animals can't. The only way they adjust to climate change is by moving, and there's only so far they can move. And what then? They die.
The potential damage that global warming WILL cause FAR outweighs any potential economic fallout of implementing emmissions controls. FAR outweighs.
|
This has nothing to do with what I said, but thanks for the lecture on the environment.
I have no problems with a global environmental strategy, Kyoto just ain't it.
Until some of the nations who have used thier own countries as a dumping ground are forced to live up to a equivalent standard to the other developed nations then Kyoto is useless.
There has to be a fair balance between national economic interest and the environment as well.