| TheRealMafoo said: While I agree that a cleaner world is a better world, I think understanding the problem and impacts are important to know, before you determine the expenses, and sacrifices one needs to make. For example, let’s say I told you that we can be off fosse fuels 100% in 300 years for the cost of $50 trillion dollars, or off them in 150 years for the cost of $400 trillion. Let’s also say we prove that using them has no negative side effects. Before you can make a choice in what’s better, I would hope you would want the single most important variable in that equation. How long until we run out? If the answer is 200 years, I would hope you have a different conclusion then if it’s 1,000 years. We have a president that effectively wants to drastically change the way you live because he worries that if he doesn’t, the world is going to heat up to the point of destroying the planet. If the real issue is “we are going to run out of energy in 400 years if we keep doing what we are doing”, and that’s really the only issue, I would hope the choices we make to achieve alternative options changes. It is never a good idea, to solve the wrong problem, even if it’s for the right reasons.
|
Do you think when they put a man on the moon they said "we could do it in 2 years and it will cost $355m or we can do it over the next 100 years for $100m, let's go for the latter", of course not. Look sometimes we need a kick up arse to do the right thing, despite the costs. With the apollo program it was the cold war, with clean energy it is the threat of climate change.
Yeah it may cost more to solve the problem quickly, but the world isn't *just* about money, I want this world to be a clean and pleasant place for my children and my childrens children to grow up in, and that to me is worth more than anything.
And I don't care when fossil fuels run out, it could be tomorrow or it could be in a million years, quite frankly I don't give a shit because the sooner we become independent from them the better.
