By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
akuma587 said:
NJ5 said:

The phrase "erring on the side of caution" seems to be falling out of fashion.

Most of the things which could reduce global warming also have other beneficial side effects, such as reducing dependency on fossil fuels, reducing car usage, phasing out coal power plants (which emit more radiation than nuclear ones), etc.

Why don't developed countries do these things and potentially get a double bonus out of them?

 

Couldn't agree more.  Its not like any of the things we would be doing to prevent global warming would really harm us in the long run.  Most of them would get us exactly what this country needs, energy indpendence.

For whatever reason though, some people are just adamantly opposed to doing anything about global warming on principle.

Its like saying that being nice to your girlfriend is a bad idea because you have done a study that shows being nice to her won't get you laid, but then you don't get laid anyways because you act like an ass instead.

 

Most people I have ever talked to agree that for socio-ecconomic, security and environmental reasons it makes sense to reduce our dependancy on fossil fuels. From what I have seen, most proposed "solutions" to global warming are not focused on reducing (worldwide) dependancy on fossil fuels, they are about monetary transfers from wealthy western nations to developing nations and the offloading of fossil fuel use from western nations with environmental regulation to developing nations without environmental regulation.