SH3RL0CK Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 I could agree if the changes being suggested gave no benefits other than mitigating AGW effects, but I think moving immediately to more sustainable energy sources and pollution reduction makes sense even if our AGW fears are out of proportion, even though the evidence suggests they are not. I'm not heavily swayed by the arguments about "throwing trillions of dollars away" when many of the changes proposed will mean more responsible use of resources no matter what happens to the global climate. I support the immediate implementation because many of the changes should have taken place 30 years ago but were suppressed by lobbyists and never had their fair chance at shifting market stances. I think we are pretty much in agreeement here. I've never been against responsible use of our resources which would include the immediate use of renewable energy (such as wind power). CaptainPanic makes a real good point too regarding the economics. Edit to include/clarify: I do have serious questions regarding the effectiveness of carbon trading (it sounds expensive and ineffective to me). And then there are some of the crazy ideas that are out there such as artificially introducing sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere to introduce an artificial cooling. Or pulling CO2 out of the air to pump underground (just where will the energy for this come from? Its better to stop CO2 emissions at the source, energy production). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now