megaman79 said:
Yes but what would be the point of doing this now? Today, in the middle of a financial crisis when any excuse is being metered to avoid action. Much like healthcare, the environment will be delayed for aslong as humanly possibe. My country will do its part since the majority of our wealth has come from cheap coal sales to china in the last decade. This is the problem, no one is going to do anything especially if people are kept naive about the real facts involved. Since the economy is our "golden standard for living" on both sides of parliament this is the sollution that has been chosen. If you want to talk about liberty, sure lets talk about the liberty that allows one country to use 25% of the entire earths resources. Lets talk about that doubling because of China in the next 20 - 30 years.
|
Suppse that the country that uses 25% of the resources but is responsible for 25% of the development of new technology which will allow the rest of the world to live a better life while using less resources; what if the actions you perform to lower the usage of resources has a limited impact on short term consumption but prevents the development of the technology for future efficient resource usage?
Most of the areas you're upset that there isn't rapid enough progress on are also very complicated systems where the reaction to an action can be greater in scale and far more negative than the original problem was; and in this environment it is actually very dangerous to make large changes, and most changes should come little by little after you understand what the impact of the previous change was. As a demonstration consider affordable housing where the end result of several large changes to multiple organizations in an attempt to make housing more affordable made housing less affordable; and the eventual collapse of the artificial market conditions produced by these changes produced a crisis in the financial markets.
