Quote:
Originally Posted by nik-
I feel like my argument kinda made me the bad guy here. I agree it's a major major problem, I believe it's greatly accelerated by man, I agree we need to do something, I'm not a denier.
I just think it's going to be a god damn nightmare to actually get things to change which is why I think the economic replacement will need to be ready.
|
Not against you, but it's so funny how the positions changes and how people who have wanted to fix the problem have already argued on why your point/question is important, but not as important as suggested. (Bit long, I'll get to the point, I promise)
Global warming deniers or people who believe it's not an important problem (or important enough) or who have bounced through all positions, which most did:
The earth is not warming.
Then...
The earth goes through warming and cooling all the time, it's no more than a fluctuation.
Then...
Ok, the earth is warming, but it's not man made.
Then...
Ok it's warming, and we're probably contributing to it, but doing something would be so disastrous it wouldn't be worth it.
Then...
Ok we can take steps, but you know what, China and India aren't going to do it so it doesn't matter anyway.
Guess what, the people on the other side have never changed position. We've seen, embraced, and argued the hard truths all the way. And one of them, we've always said (since the late eighties...!)
Yes it's going to be expensive, yes it's going to change things and might be, will probably be, economically tough for a while. But the sooner we start changing, the less the damage there will be, and the less painful the change will be.
So did I go all this way to give all the other on the other side an 'I told you so!'? Maybe. But more importantly to repeat...
The sooner we get started the less damage will occur and the less painful the change will be.
It's like anything in life. The sooner you face facts and work on the problem, the better you are in the long run. The longer you try to ignore, the more it sucks when you try to change it.
So yes, it's going to be harsh on the economy. More harsh that it would have been thirty years ago, but less harsh than it will be thirty years from now.
There won't ever be a replacement ready to ease the transfer you are thinking. ESPECIALLY if we continue on the path we are on now where the energy companies are controlling the conversation and the governments. Which is what delaying the fix is. It's just letting them delay the replacement.
How can you have a replacement, when your are delaying the replacement?
Lastly as an agrument that is so obvious I don't know why the other side never acknowledges it, losing habitable land (major cities!) to the oceans, losing arable land to drought, and losing biodiversity to climate change is going to be far more devastating to the economy than the change that will occur from moving from non-renewable fuels. Far more. Like drop in the bucket difference.
