Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
The pop can shine behind him in the video reminds me of my youth.
Anyways, the problem is his extremes (plus he left out another scenario).
The extreme global warming crowd has pretty much all life on earth ending, so yes in a prisoners dilemma game, thats the one you want to avoid at all costs.
The box he didn't have was, what if global warming is real, and not human caused. In this scenario we will be broke and still all hell will break loose.
You could argue this for any problem.
Take GM foods.
The worst case scenario to some would be a complete breakdown of food production and millions starving. Therefore we shouldn't use GM foods.
Nuclear power.
The worst case scenario to some would be 100's of square miles contaminated and unfit for human life, therefore no nuclear power.
So whats the real question isn't his 'logic' but his costs, costs which might be a wee bit exaggerated.
|
Leaving out the extremes, which I agree are counter-productive to a rational discussion.
In the US alone, we have at least 10 federal agencies that regulate genetically modified foods.
We have at least 5 federal agencies that regulate nuclear power generation and waste storage and transportation.
What is wrong with re-examining regulations that control the human induced emissions of C02 and attempting to minimize those emissions through tougher regulations that can be accomplished in an economically sustainable manner?
California is attempting to do it through legislation enacted last year that has a goal of reducing C02 emissions to 1990 levels in the next twenty years and considers the economic impact at the same time. CO2 emissions cross state lines and national borders...so why not at the federal level?