This day in history - June 24, 1974

[MelBridgeman]

I am glad some in this thread have faith in humanity and science to solve all our problems that were created by science and humanity to begin with...It wasnt that long ago when science was being patted on the back for the combustion engine, cars, planes etc...all the things that are to blame for our apparently dire situation. The fact is the answers aren't there yet - this is a complex problem, that i am not sure anyone yet fully understands, if we ever will....

But is always in history what we know today will not be what we know tommorrow.

[RougeUnderoos]

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.

What proposed solutions are going to kill people?

Decreasing consumption and pollution doesn't kill people. That seems to be the ultimate goal.

Somehow it seems that spending less on energy has been turned into a bad thing. It isn't a bad thing.

[Daradon]

^^^ What I was trying to say... Economics and markets change more often and easily than the planet.

In fact, the change of economics to fit modern day solutions is what causes progress and innovation.

As I was saying. It cannot be economics vs. environment. It has to be a global shift.

RE: Cowboy89

Why can't we put the effort into this like we did on getting to the moon, or building the pyramids, or all the amazing achievments in between?

For every outdated technology and idea, there are 1 or more to take it's place.

It's an opportunity, not a problem. It's only a problem for the people and industries that don't think forward anymore. And if they can't do that, we don't need em.

Sure it's a rosy view, but I'm just countering your doom and gloom. Industry and economics are built for change. Our planet is not, at least not RAPID change. If people were to die in your scenario, then it's very likely that many more would die in the opposite.