| megaman79 said: See theres your problem, calling it a political issue. Its almost like you don't give a shit about the planet at all. Let's say your wrong, bcoz its happened before (iraq, vietnam, cold war), and the world suffers irreversable climate change, are you going to take responsibility for encouraging inaction because that is what you are saying. Its no wonder the only reasoning Obama can use is the security gained from not sending money to potentially threatening middle eastern oil producers. There are actually alot of benefits that are better for the environment, for the US economy, for the job market and for your health. |
How is it not a political issue?
It is one thing to argue that the socio-economic, security and environmental (including the possibility that man has some influence on global warming) indicates a need to move away from fossil fuels to other viable energy sources until we have a better alternative; and if people were reasonable and looking at things from a rational and/or scientific way this is what we would be talking about.
To put it another way, if "Global Warming" (or "Climate Change" being that the warming abruptly stopped) was nearly as big of a risk as it is made out to be than we would see people suggesting the rational trade off of moving to nuclear power; because modern nuclear power plants are safe and we have the ability to manage the waste in a way that there are very few long term risks associated with it.
