{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
4/3/2016 4:41:30 PM
21
What do we lose from reacting to climate change?
No really? If we had a full in debate about climate change, it would come down to this:
[b][i]So if we live economically friendly lives and climate change is real, then we have a better planet. If it's not real, then we have a better planet for nothing. [/i][/b]
Even if climate change isn't real, pollution is. We can see it in multiple countries and cities around the world. Those in north and South Korea have to wear masks because the pollution in the air is dangerous. Even in LA or New York, the cloud of pollution looming above the city is frightening.
So this brings me to wonder why conservatives fight off economically friendly lifestyles being imposed on it's citizens.
It could be because it may be a less comfortable or convenient lifestyle. But that's just being lazy, a tag placed on liberals by conservatives.
The one that makes sense to me is that businesses will fail, especially the oil industry. This is what raises the most red flags to me.
It may be a blatant statement, but everything points to the conservatives being payed off by these endangered industries so that their business doesn't fail. That's why oil companies buy out designs for fuel efficient cars. If we utilized technology to it's fullest extent, we could have cars that get 300+ miles to the gallon. But the oil industry doesn't allow it. Why would they allow a political decision to hinder their business as well?
So this brings me back, [b][i]if global warming isn't real, then we'll be making a better planet for nothing?[/i][/b] that doesn't sound so bad to me. How about you?
-
Here's the problems with your arguments: First off- Global warming is an issue. The problems with our environments are serious. Here's the thing, though, there are more important issues in the world today. We have a serious number of issues in this world from wars, to abortions, to wide-spread corruption and oppression. At this point, saving the environment is not a priority. Even if it was, the type of global co-operation needed to actually effect reasonable change is impossible at this time. Even if America burned no oil and went total environmental with full reusing, reducing, and recycling, China, North Korea, Russia, and a number of other countries would not care at all. The US taking a crap load of these policies on us only wouldn't help anyone. Secondly- All proposed environmental solutions involve reducing the amount of "harmful stuff" that companies can use to produce products. Thing is, we aren't really advanced enough to move away from the use of these things. Think about it: Businesses don't like dealing with the EPA or paying fines. If they could switch to a nuclear system (which also has some lesser environmental repercussions), or a solar power system, they would. At this point, putting limits on businesses just limits production, or causes them to outsource to other countries that have more lax environmental laws. In addition, Oil is a massive industry. Crippling an industry and the careers (not just jobs, careers) of millions of people for "the environment" is a terrible idea. Thirdly- [quote] So this brings me to wonder why conservatives fight off economically friendly lifestyles being imposed on it's citizens. [/quote] This bothers me. A lot. You can't just enforce a lifestyle on people because you think its a good idea. By that logic, Abortion should be outlawed, because we are being deprived of millions of people per year in ideas and workers (for the record, I am very pro-life, but this type of argument rarely sees success). Also: Who defines what an economically friendly lifestyle is? Are we outlawing certain purchases now? What about garbage? Do citizens have to recycle or face arrest? This idea screams of oppression, and is a terrible idea to say the least.
