Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
So far as I can tell we just don't have a firm enough basis to say there is a crisis requiring drastic restructuring of the world's advanced economies (while tolerating massive pollution from China and India). I'm totally with the concept that we should be responsible stewards of the earth, but we also need to be responsible stewards of our families and economies. So far as I'm able to tell this whole global warming thing is being used as a cudgel for political purposes rather than as a scientific question.
|
I recall the same argument 35 years ago from car makers, oil companies, utilities, other heavy industries, etc about the need for a clean air act, clean water, safe drinking water act, solid waste disposal act, toxic waste disposal act....
The results were hardly an economic catastrophe and in fact, stimulated new industries to meet the new standards or develop alternatives.
I prefer to err on the side of "what if the fact that the US is responsible for 25% of the world's CO2 emissions and DOES have a serious environmental impact."
And I still tend to side with the IPCC and 11 national academies of science over the deniers, many of whom are funded by Exxon, Heartland Foundation and other industry interest groups.
Energy conservation/efficiency and airborne pollution mitigation is good policy policy from both an environmental and economic sustainability perspective.
If you were to read the IPCC mitigation strategy, you would find, for the most part, sensible recommendations that dont "require drastic restructuring of the world's advanced economies."
But I raised this in another thread with Ustwo and he chose not to respond.