Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Given the uncertainties of man being the cause of global warming and not knowing the impact reducing CO2 will have, I am not interested in experimenting with what may turnout to be very costly.
|
Given your uncertainties of man being the cause of global warming, I am not surprised that you would be concerned.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
You can't be suggesting that our democracy need not be involved in what many consider the most important issue facing the human race.
|
Our democracy is involved - in electing Obama as a representation of our goals. I suspect most people that are going to vote for Obama would support CO2 reduction policies, given that they likely do not share your hesitancy in accepting what the large majority of geo-scientists have told us (an even larger majority when you weed out those funded by various entities within the oil and gas industry).
Your viewpoint, that the costs are too high or excessively risky, is certainly one viewpoint. Another viewpoint would be that not taking action has even greater risk (both environmentally as well as economically) vs. potential short term economic factors. Of course, one aspect that you appear to assume is that whatever action is taken will be drastic enough as to be definitively detrimental to short term economics. Why is that necessarily so? Perhaps intelligence will be applied to the implementation so as to limit risk, limit costs, yet ultimately reach a specific goal. There are many steps between doing nothing at all and shutting down all coal plants at once.