Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Yes. Adapt or die.
|
Yes, well, that's the problem. Adapt or die isn't really sound environmental policy.
Quote:
|
I look at it in terms of what is more important the quality of life for people or the quality of life of for example polar bears. We know that when we try to manipulate nature we suffer unintended consequences. I am not comfortable that we know enough about global warming or polar bears at this time to come up with a real plan. For example will using E85 have an impact on either, what about increased use of nuclear power, how do we know that current emision controls are not working and will restore "balance" over time, etc, etc.
|
Our manipulation of nature just might be what got the polar bears in this situation in the first place. The melting ice is probably an unintended consequence of our manipulations. It sounds like what you're saying is that we should avoid trying to dampen the unintended negative consequences of our actions because there might be unintended negative consequences, and unintended negative consequences must be avoided. What if our inaction has unintended negative consequences?
We can approximate how much carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere and we can try to discourage behaviors that release a lot of carbon dioxide into the air. It's not that difficult. A whole lot of good could be done just by enforcing stricter emission standards in our automobiles.
I further don't see how this is a quality of life issue. Certainly, being the big proponent of the tenacious free market that you are, you can't seriously be concerned about the economy being unable to rebound from restrictions on fuel emissions.
Quote:
|
The UN published a report stating that domesticated live stock is a major contributor to greenhouse gases causing global warming. Are you willing to give up beef and milk products? Should developing third world nations stop raising cattle as a needed source of protien? Who determines how much is too much?
|
Third world nations aren't responsible for the vast majority of carbon dioxide emissions, developed nations are. And you're confused about the cattle industry if you think that the cattle raised in third world countries to satisfy protein needs is the same cattle that are a major contributor to global warming. The cattle most responsible for contributing to global warming is very likely the same cattle most responsible for contributing to the obesity epidemic in america, i.e. the cattle mass produced on land that used to be rainforest for various fast food establishments.
Quote:
|
In a way I agree. I think the true cost (including environmental costs) should be reflected in the goods we purchase. If those costs are truely reflected the market would ensure our environment is protected. When the government subsidizes certain industries, like oil, coal, etc. it has a tendency to hurt inovation in other areas.
|
So are you saying that you support the taxation of goods as a means to regulate negative externalities? Is there any other way to ensure the price people pay for certain goods reflects the negative effects of that good on the world at large?
Quote:
|
At one point most of the planet was tropical, at another the planet had an ice age, and at another point we have conditions as they are now. some how the earth has an ability to regulate its temprature. There has to be more to the explanation you provided.
|
Yes, the earth's temperature does what it does. The idea when it comes to preventing global warming is that we should avoid inadvertently altering the climate because hey, things are all right now and nobody knows what will happen if a warm spell is induced.
Quote:
|
Is there a paticular source(s) or study that you used to help you make up your mind? If so what is it?
|
This thread has a good discussion.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=108935