| Groundking said:
You have to ask yourself the cost of doing nothing verses the cost of making a real effort, and the cost of doing nothing is an unkown, simply because we can't predict, at all, how the climate will change in the future, yet we do know that MILLIONS of people in the developing world will die unnessecarily if we put massive restrictions on fossil fuels. What pollutants have caused irrefutable damang to the environment? Not all organisms thrive in the environment we deem perfect, how do you know that this 'damage' hasn't actually increased the diversity in life on the planet due to the new environment being beneficial to new kinds of organisms? Also and increase in CO2 isn't necessairly damaging to the environment, it's well know that more CO2 leads to greater and stronger plant growth.
|
I say "minimized damage" and people take it as "massive restrictions that will kill millions of people"? This is why I hate this topic. People pick a side and then they defend that side with everything they can find while discarding and throwing away everything that even hints at being not supportive of their agenda. It's a waste of time. I mean, you're really telling me that there are no pollutants that have not damaged the environment? That acid rain has been a positive? That the DDT pesticides that were wiping out birds were a good thing? Okay, man.
