Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ
Umm...no.
You can't get your head around that the concept that I can be a skeptic about all the hysteria and still be pro-enviromental. That I can be pro-eviroment (I wonder if there is any other position); think that all these "green ideas" are great but skeptical in their practicality. I personally would love to see Alberta jump the fore in Nuclear technology and sell our massive coal reserves to fund it. But I also see the problems with that. I think that Gore and Suzuki and big fat capital H hypocrits who talk the talk but sure don't walk the walk. You can't conceptualize that I would think that way. Just doesn't register.
|
I can "conceptualize" skepticism, environmentalism and pedantry, so please don't tell me I'm too dumb to understand anything that you've got a grasp on.
[/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ
For you since I am a skeptic I am all for carrying on as usual and polluting. You have said as much.
|
I haven't said as much and I don't believe that. I don't think that many people really believe we should continue down this road even if they are skeptical, so I asked what was a rhetorical question because I knew the answer. Nobody thinks we should keep doing the things we are doing (consuming as fast as possible and accelerating that consumption while we are at it) but some people scoff at the "hysteria" even though they are in favour of slowing down consumption.
It's like you, based on your professed "pro-environment stance", are saying "we should slow down on the pollution but not because of global warming" while someone else says "we should slow down on the pollution because of global warming". The goal is the same even if the motives are slightly different, but you ridicule anyone who believes the staggering amount of stuff we burn through everyday could be changing the climate for the worse. Then you make up some crazy comparison to Haiti (and you say Gore has a Doomsday Scenario) and say that's what is going to happen if we try to do anything about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ
Actually, I am sure they (you) are not. But if many of the ideas, even in this thread are implemented without a well thought out plan to their cause and effect will do exactly that. Did you ever consider what would happen to Alberta if oil revenue dried up? Every live in Alberta through the 80's? It was ugly!
|
Who exactly is advocating a bunch of changes without a well-thought-out plan? We all know that isn't the answer, but it seems to be a concern of a lot of people. As though suddenly someone will say "that's it, no more driving" or "solar power for everyone in 1 year". This isn't going to happen. All the anti-Kyoto people (myself included, I guess) should be happy because we no know we aren't going to actually do it. On the other hand, I don't remember 1990 being particularly cold or dark or Haiti-esque. The original Kyoto idea was (if I'm not mistaken) to get to the emissions levels we were at that year or possibly slightly lower, and do so over like a 15 year period. It's not a rash decision and it wouldn't have been that hard to do. Hell, fuel-efficient cars, appliances and water heaters probably could have made up a big chunk of the difference.
Instead of at least slowing down or even stopping, we have actually sped up the speeding up. I read recently that between 1990 and 1999, carbon emissions from fossil fuels went up 0.8%. In 2000-2005, they went up 3.2%.
Nobody has made or will make any rash decisions that will lead to economic collapse. That sounds like the same kind of fearmongering you accuse Gore and Suzuki of.