|
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I don't see what good an alternate point of view would make, and that's exactly my whole point: things are messed up no matter what the causes were, and we'd better do something about it. |
Here is the problem. Thinking that being overly cautious (or extremly cautious) does not have its side effects.
There are costs to everying you do. Man has limited resources. Money is how we gauge the importance of these resources.
Faces with such limitations would you:
1) Rather spend a billion dollars to curb a million tons of CO2
2) Spend a billion dollars to buy 1000 sq miles of rainforest and efforts to cleanup of plastic and chemical contamination of our oceans and drinking water?
The point that sold me about the vain attempt to curb our Co2 production in the movies is the below argument. You can watch it if you skip forward to 24:45 min in the video.
But to summarize:
Carbon Dioxide is a natrual gas produced by all living things.
Humans aren't the main source of its production.
Humans produce a small fractrion (in the single digits percetnage wise) of the CO2 that is in the atmosphere.
According the video these are the largest producers of CO2 emissions into our atmosphere:
1) The oceans
2) Dying vegitation
3) Animals and bacteria (and so you can compare how much exactly in quantitative temrs with human production below, bacteria and animals produce a 150 gigatons of Co2 each year into the atmopshere).
4) Volcanos
Down on the list
5) Humans who produce only 6.5 gigatons of Co2 emissions each year.
And for background. I believe I am very very large environmentalist. And I give to environmental lobbiest here in my state (it is hard because they choose so many environmentally wrong issues like supporting biofuels or encouraging solar power despite the obvious advantages of nuclear).
So you end up at the end of the day saying, do we waste all this public outrage and all the public money (and then the reduce production and other costs) from following an issue that a) isn't proven and b) we are likely to not have a great effect on.
Great example the evils global warming scare has caused is the so called "bio-fuel" revolution that happened in the USA. Corn prices have doubled from one year. This has create a chilling effect on Mexico where the poor subsist on corn and corn prices. There have been riots about this issue in many proviences and the Mexican government has had to enact previously removed subsidies to quell them. Letting a developing nation pick up the tab on the West environmental fantisies instead of spending their money where they should: corrupt politicians (or schools). 
"Global Warming" is now providing us with a chilling choice of feeding our fellow man or feeding our fellow car. So far a hungry car in the West will pay a lot more for that corn than a hungry family in the third world. Before we simply limited ourselves to not being able to make such choices. And why not? We have nuclear, cheap, clean, abundant energy that we can not consume. Why not focus resources into it? But we don't even need to go that far; I'd prefer clean coal to high corn prices anyday.
Another example, I read a recent study about the hugh cost in replacing (and the resources expended) changing to the new CF light bulb standard from incandecent. However, would you have cheap energy you would not need to worry about such an effort. All these energy saving efforts do cost real money. And if energy were cheaper one would welcome the place of more abundant goods, products, and low-cost transporation which would increase the wealth of the world.
More effort needs to be paid to recycling, reducing waste, saving our landfills, reducing toxins and chemicals into the air and water. Reducing pollution in the oceans, overfishing, forest deprivation, etc.
Yet what does everyone rally about? Co2 emissions.
Grow fucking up.
Its so horrible how so much good will is so horribly misplaced.
___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!
Click here to support the free mustard alliance.
|
haha
