One of the sites I hang out on is called TreeHugger.com. People who know me in person know that I’m pretty into helping the environment. However, I just don’t find the evidence of humans materially affecting the climate to be persuasive.
Most of the discussions are about things like making your home more energy efficient or how to improve your local environment.
But every now and then, you get a global warming discussion and the militancy of the global warming advocates comes out.
For example, one post entitled “How do we get through to these people?!” discusses the frustration they have in convincing people of the need to pass legislation that drastically reduces our carbon footprints because of the way carbon is affecting climate (in their opinion).
After numerous people responded pointing out how dumb the average person was and that was the reason I came on and wrote:
The reason so many GW advocates get the cold shoulder is because of the sheer arrogance many of them show. The GW issue is one I've followed since before it was remotely mainstream (like many here I presume) and there's nothing more aggravating than having some family member see 'An inconvenient truth" and then have them talk down to me as if they suddenly became climatologists because they watched a movie. I think the best path is simply to try to get people to want to reduce their footprint (Carbon or otherwise) on the earth's resources. But having people who really are often come across as being brain washed insulting people who are skeptical or disagree (I mean really, how infantile is it to call people like me "climate change deniers" as if we're akin to holocaust deniers). Incidentally, during the little ice age, heads of state officially blamed witchcraft as the cause of the earth cooling. Humans have always believed that they had the power to control the weather whether it be from gods or controlling CO2 emissions.
The reason so many GW advocates get the cold shoulder is because of the sheer arrogance many of them show. The GW issue is one I've followed since before it was remotely mainstream (like many here I presume) and there's nothing more aggravating than having some family member see 'An inconvenient truth" and then have them talk down to me as if they suddenly became climatologists because they watched a movie.
I think the best path is simply to try to get people to want to reduce their footprint (Carbon or otherwise) on the earth's resources. But having people who really are often come across as being brain washed insulting people who are skeptical or disagree (I mean really, how infantile is it to call people like me "climate change deniers" as if we're akin to holocaust deniers).
Incidentally, during the little ice age, heads of state officially blamed witchcraft as the cause of the earth cooling. Humans have always believed that they had the power to control the weather whether it be from gods or controlling CO2 emissions.
Another user had then come on and said that the environmental movement needs to combine its efforts to get effective legislation passed:
My proposed solution today is to bring all the fractured factions of the environemntal movement under one umbrella and provide a warm welcome for converts to join in and participate with a grass-roots effort that allows them to buy-in to it. This may be accomplished by clearly demonstrating affordable and viable sustainable energy solutions and other ways to save money at home with energy efficiency in the short run that offer them immediate returns. In essence, such an effort involves buying the hearts and minds of the people, which is a common business ploy many comapnies use today to gain a customer base. Then, with a ground-swell of support in shear numbers that can't be ignored, a meaningful lobbying block may be created to rouse the attention of Congressional leadership. Finally, the entire effort must have a feeling of inclusion and provide the necessary money motives that converts and supporters alike can appreciate. It may be high-time to put aside self-righteous indignation and environmental snobishness that serves no purpose in fulfilling our unified goals.
My proposed solution today is to bring all the fractured factions of the environemntal movement under one umbrella and provide a warm welcome for converts to join in and participate with a grass-roots effort that allows them to buy-in to it. This may be accomplished by clearly demonstrating affordable and viable sustainable energy solutions and other ways to save money at home with energy efficiency in the short run that offer them immediate returns. In essence, such an effort involves buying the hearts and minds of the people, which is a common business ploy many comapnies use today to gain a customer base.
Then, with a ground-swell of support in shear numbers that can't be ignored, a meaningful lobbying block may be created to rouse the attention of Congressional leadership. Finally, the entire effort must have a feeling of inclusion and provide the necessary money motives that converts and supporters alike can appreciate. It may be high-time to put aside self-righteous indignation and environmental snobishness that serves no purpose in fulfilling our unified goals.
I responded by saying:
The problem is that there is no homogeneous environmental movement. I consider myself an environmentalist but am extremely skeptical about human induced global warming. And I'm not alone. Most of my colleagues who have a similar technical or scientific background are skeptical as well. That doesn't prove anything other than to say that there's a lot of people who fall into my category of being environmentalists but don't think humans are materially affecting global temperatures. In my opinion, having the government force us to do things "for our own good" is tyranny whether it's in the name of "security" or for "the sake of our planet". Moreover, environmentalists often strongly disagree on solutions or are totally impractical. Wind energy and solar energy, for instance, won't do the trick any time soon. But try to build a nuclear power plant (0 emissions) and suddenly they get creamed by the envirnomental movement (either reducing our carbon foot print is life or death or it's not - clearly it's not to a lot of people in the movement).
The problem is that there is no homogeneous environmental movement. I consider myself an environmentalist but am extremely skeptical about human induced global warming. And I'm not alone. Most of my colleagues who have a similar technical or scientific background are skeptical as well. That doesn't prove anything other than to say that there's a lot of people who fall into my category of being environmentalists but don't think humans are materially affecting global temperatures.
In my opinion, having the government force us to do things "for our own good" is tyranny whether it's in the name of "security" or for "the sake of our planet".
Moreover, environmentalists often strongly disagree on solutions or are totally impractical. Wind energy and solar energy, for instance, won't do the trick any time soon. But try to build a nuclear power plant (0 emissions) and suddenly they get creamed by the envirnomental movement (either reducing our carbon foot print is life or death or it's not - clearly it's not to a lot of people in the movement).
A user responded to this and my other post by saying:
Ultimately it doesn't matter what anyone believes about Global Warming, it's going to happen regardless of what anyone believes about it, and believers and deniers alike will suffer the effects alongside each other. Being a denier simply makes a person appear less intelligent in the meantime.
In other words, because I’m a “denier” I just appear less intelligent. He went on and said:
Well one thing we've learned is that denialists haven't actually looked at the same data. While we look at data put out by NASA, NOAA, USGS, and other scientific research groups, we've noticed that denialists get their data from oil industry lobbyists, and while some of the data is the same, the data they give has been cherry picked to leave out the data which makes it clear that A: rapid climate change is happening, and that B: human activity is a primary factor.
So you see, if you don’t believe in global warming, you're just not intelligent or you’re brainwashed by big oil.
It's interesting that you would post this because I find myself in the same boat. I feel I'm fairly enviornmentally conscious, and am quite careful of things like ground water pollutants, pesticide and herbicide use, etc, using targeted things only where necessary. I've been following the climatological debate since the 70's. I did a report in AP science in the 7th grade regarding global cooling - or the coming ice age as it was hyped then, and am far more familiar with the science and math involved than almost any of my family, friends, or co-workers. I'm a strong advocate for additional renewable energy sources and more nuclear power (yes, HYRDO IS A RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE) and am in the process of deploying wind and solar in our new home we moved to two years ago.
Yet the moment I bring up anything for discussion regarding anthropomorphic climate-change (i.e. human induced climate changes), especially if I try to have any kind of rational discussion regarding many of the assumptions and data sets used for modelling, I get lambasted and written off as dumb, uninformed, or just 'out-of-touch' with modern science.
Frustrating.
I checked out the site, thanks for the link. I just became a member as well. I admit I am not as much an enviromentalist as you but I try and look forward to doing more in the future. Like you I believe we should have as little impact as possible on the enviroment just because we should. I don't see any reason to screw up the enviroment just because we can, besides, anything that's beneficial to our health is a good thing.
I read the comments made by that blogger and have to agree that you get more flies with honey than you do with hotsauce. I always find it ironic how people like him like insulting people by calling them ignorant just because you don't agree with them but wouldn't that make him ignorant as well for them not agreeing with you? This illusion that some people believe that their own opinions are somehow standard and that anyone elses opinions that differ from theirs is somehow worthless is amazing.
BTW, how come hadrly anyone ever points out that people emit CO2 as well when ever someone likes to point out that CO2 is a danger to our planet?
the founder of greenpeace left the organization because it was taken over by communists, anti american, anti coporate activists who use thinly veiled lies wrapped around a green rhetoric...
It is very much possible to be concerned about the environment but not buy the global warming is a catastrophy caused by humanity load of bull.
I'll gladly except the "Big Oil" proposition because I can't stand evangelism for anything...
I'm unconvinced by the idea of global warming, but climate change seems reasonable, if only because you can see it. Whether it's human-influenced or not is irrelevant.
Many things climate change folks want to do - reduce emissions, stop old growth forest logging, encourage mangrove reclamation etc - are worthwhile anyway. Who really wants cities full of smog, with no forests nearby/convenient medicinal biospheres and a coast that erodes a couple of metres every year?
As a result, I don't think there's anything essentially wrong with green groups. They're like the religious - I wouldn't want them in control, but their singleminded pursuit of their goals can sometimes do plenty of good.
And if they get off on sneering at me, well it's not like I'm doing a very good job of hiding my utter disdain for them.
actually MOST things they want to do are BULLSHIT and do nothing but harm the economy and possibily the environment.
CO2 isn't even real pollution, we exhale it, its not like its gonna give you cancer like some of the other SERIOUS emissions.
And old forests are burned away to make way to farmland... logging is done in tree farms, areas where trees were RECENTLY planted and then logged, but they don't care, they destroy those industries too, resulting in the US importing lumber, like everything else.
Part of the US economic difficulty is that it stopped producing anything, and those incessant blows against capitalism and industry are just weakening it further.
If what they wanted to do had merit of its own they would not need to lie and create a sensation to make people do it.
CO2 has killed entire villages in the past, but that's by the by (check out the histories of some of the volcanic lakes in South America for the details).
Still, do you really want to breathe polluted air? The change from leaded to unleaded petrol took a long time, sure, but it greatly improved the quality of air. Shifts to more efficient diesel engines is doing the same thing for the trucking industry now. These are gradual improvements in pollution reduction that environmentalists fought for and that are having a positive effect on our quality of life. I don't think the price has been that high, and if wasn't for environmentalists, we wouldn't have got them. A bit of patchouli and some nuttiness every once in a while is a requirement of every political philosophy - socialist, libertarian, monarchist, social democratic alike.
The world doesn't need any more farmland, but it may need an obscure mushroom that only grows in one place. Biodiversity is its own reward and should be valued higher than a few thousand hectares of rice or wheat. As for old-growth, it's logged in Tasmania to get certain hardwoods that take too long to grow, so farms aren't the only method used.
Floods of water killed way more people than CO2, by your argument this means water is pollution.
Which is why we should allow more CO2 emissions to reduce REAL pollutants.
Nice rhetoric but completely irrelevant to what I said. I was saying that logging is not what is destroying old forests, and by going after logging instead of the REAL culprit we do more damage. So we should leave logging well enough alone and deal with the REAL issues.
Cacto, I can understand and someone agree with your argument but you can't simply use the excuse that something killed a large amount of people as an excuse to stop or slow done the use or creation of it because that concept can be applied to anything: water, cars, buildings, fire, food, etc. And I doubt you can stop the use or creation of any of these things.
To answer your question posed in the title - no. lol I am sadly not an environment scientist, but my brother in law is. He has a phd in geoecology which studies the impact of human technology on the global ecosystem. He bases his answer solely on empirical data.. to quote him "no respectable environmental scientist seriously disputes it". The problem is in interpreting the data and having a big enough supercomputers for all the massive calculations necessary. And honestly, mankind did not have the technological means to influence much of anything on a global scale in the past. Since the industrial revolution at the end of the 18th century that has changed dramatically. Do you really believe that all those exhausts and fumes pumped into the air all over the world fro the last 200 years, especially today from growing 3rd world countries that do not invest in any fancy filters etc or even think about reducing emission, just the opposite infact, have had no impact at all?
I encourage you to read up on Hans Jonas (The imperative of responsibilty: In search of ethics for the technological age, 1979) He was a philosopher that wrote very influential works, especially in environmental ethics. He basically said that the technological means available to mankind nowadays can produce unforseen consequences that can have potentially devastating effects for everybody. The problem with technology is that it develops faster than our knowledge of all possible consequences it might have does, and it is very dangerous to justify using potentially harmful technology with the steadfast belief that a resolution for any and all problems will be found in the future as knowledge increases. The contemporary generation has no moral right to play with the future of following generations, it has instead an obligation to responsibility. Mankind is the only known being with the ability to be responsible for its actions because man is free and can make choices to do or not do something. Thus, ontologically, responsibilty is a moral value.
Acting responsibly would mean in the case of global warming to assume the worst - in dubio pro malo. It is unethical just to wait and see what happens because even though it is easy to exhaust excessive CO2, it will not be easy to counter possible devastating side effects. Hans Jonas formulated the so called ethical imperative (a la E. Kant): Act so that the effect of your action are compatible with the permanence of genuine human life.
To put it in very plain words, even if you do not believe in global warming, you just can't morally take the chance that it might be true (said point is the ethical-philosophical construct made very well by Hans Jonas.. and it is above any political or otherwise ideology).
Stupid argument because the "cure" is worse than the disease.
And with all due respect, your brother is a LAWYER. No real scientists dispute it? ENVIRONMENTALISTS who are geo-scientists dispute it.
Since i didn't mention any cures, I am wondering just what exactly you mean by "worse". Please elaborate on this?
And with all due respect back, my brother in law taught this in University. He keeps up with all the current research that is published and has a better informed opinion about this issue than most because he is foremost a scientist that understands all the physical and chemical happenings in the atmosphere, and not a lawyer that tries to convinces others of his point of view by using fancy language to dazzle the jury. How many laypersons really do read the scientific published articles and understand them - I would be really surprised if there are a ton of people out there who did not study or research this for years and that can still claim that they understand every aspect about how the ecosystem worked. Somehow I felt compelled to defend his "honor" as a scientist here, this is of course totally beside the point wether global warming is fact or fiction.
Spiderman was told by his dying Grandfather "With great power comse great responsibility" - that puts everything in a neat slogal. This applies to alot of aspects for developing and using technology, not just in the context of global warming. It would be very limited to see everything in relation to just one percieved problem. Back when Jonas wrote his book people were starting to notice envirnonmental problems on a global scale for the first time - polluted rivers, dead lakes, acidic rains that killed forests on a large scale etc. Back in 1979 there were no ethical values at all in regard to the environment, it was just viewed as one gigantic resource for mankind that will always be there and that can not be affected by mankind, no matter what they tried. This is no longer valid, and thus the old ethical morals are no longer enough. Jonas was a pioneer with that opinion and many disagreed with it, but I think he does have a solid argument.. if you have an argument that negates what he said with a better solution, I am eager to hear it. After all, this is not about being RIGHT but about finding a good solution for a problem that concerns every single person on the planet.
So utemia, let me make sure I understand you:
I can live a life that minimized my impact on the environment and in fact have a far smaller impact on the environment than say Al Gore but I am not an enviromentalist unless I have faith in global warming being manmade?
Sounds like a religion.
I always find it amusing when I meet people who think of themselves as climatologists because they've read a few articles and seen An inconvenient truth.
I have been following the issue of global warming closely since the early 90s. I feel pretty comfortable in my own judgment. Especially since I have a pretty technical background - I'm used to looking at statisical data.
But the typical global warming zealot I meet has no technical background. They're just some guy (or gal) who knows that "the scientists" say it's true and therefore it must be true. It's very much like the Jehova witnesses who insist that "the scientists" have "proven" that evolution is impossible and that the flood is a "scientific fact".
In fact, now that I think of it, in "real life" every single person I know who is really concerned about "global warming" and "carbon footprint" have backgorunds in humanities and social "sciences". I can't think of a single engineer (for instance) that isn't a skeptic.
But hey, the hippies have lists of "scientists" who have signed on and look at the NASA website? If only those idiots who are brainwashed by "big oil" would just look at the data right?
You totally missed the point, Draginol. I don't really care what other people think nor do I try to convert them. It is not about my personal opinion - and I am not american so I don't really understand this whole religious approach and polarizing of politics that seems to be pretty common in the US. It does rarely seem to be possible to have a somewhat detached abstract debate with Americans about anything really without someones feelings or convictions getting hurt and insults flying. (your comment being case in point)
I am not simply believing in movies (which I have not seen, not a single one of them) and I do not claim to be a climatologist at all or to have a understanding of how ecological systems work on a physical and chemical basis. Are you calling me a global warming zealot? I wasn't really clear on that... and I think i said earlier that the problem (one of the problems really) was the evaluation of all the data and fitting it into valid theory.. according to me so called "scientist" relative who clearly has no idea what he is talking about, and who most likely earned a natural science doctorate by opening a cereal box and is a jehova witness and whatnot , the problem was in calculating climatological models because they require (insert really high number) of calculations that would tax supercomputers. Those calculations are not difficult, but it is the quantity that makes it problematic to develop accurate climatological prediction models. It is clearly evident that he has no idea what he is talking about at all. I am aware that anybody can interpret statistics as they see fit - that is why statistics in itself are meaningless, and that interpretations can vary significantly.
Please take note that I never talked about minimizing the human mpact of the environment, minimizing carbon footprints or anything - I did not talk about measures or laws or policy - all I said was that mankind has the moral responsibility to the future generations to think before doing things that we don't know the outcome of for sure and that could have uncontrollable consequences.You'll have a hard time proving that all possible consequences of things like genetic engineering (another popular issue), and numerous technological advances are known. FYI, that is NOT equivalent with saying that there should not be an advance and development of technology - just that there have to be new ethical guidelines that fit the new situation.
And of course, you are right. Those pesky social sciences and humanities with their oh so useless fields of morals, philosophy and ethics just spew out slogans and clearly are just wasting precious oxygen. Probably all liberals, too, right? They have no clue about anything and simply enjoy accusing down to earth "idiots".
Oh and yeah, you can be an environmentalist without even thinking about global warming - but everybody agrees that the world is warming on a global scale, just not if its manmade or not, isn`t that right? So..no you cannot be a global warming skeptic because it is an empirical fact, or so I heard again from unspecified sources. Average temperatures are rising slowly but surely, the northwest passage will be shipable soon and the polar caps are melting, which actually makes the people in greenland happy.. and the big oil that wants to get all the natural resources under the ice. Didn't Russia even put up a flag somewhere on the arctic ocean floor stating that big chunk of land was infact siberian soil and belonged to them? you didn't specify the cause for that warming in the first place.
And for what it is worth, insult away!
Your "cure" was to stop CO2 emissions... you said that on the CHANCE it might be harmful to the environment despite all the evidence to the contrary, that we should eliminate it. Reducing or eliminating CO2 emissions has devastating effects on the economy AND on the environment, with many ill thought of plans or just plain fraud going on that causes environmental harm. People are throwing away perfectly good products to replace them with eco friendly ones (the cost in pollution to produce them thousands of times the amount of pollution it "saves"). Power plants are shut down, areas are cleared to build more wind plants (which kill all the birds in the area), And so on.
Let me tell you a story. I was told many things are highly unhealthy, alcohol, cigarettes, sugar, salt, etc... At one point I nearly eliminated salt from my diet... and I had reoccuring headaches, the reason? water intoxication. It seemed obvious that salt is bad, nobody spoke up for salt as far as I could tell, all the "scientists" said to eliminate salt from the diet (not control its amounts, eliminate). When bombarded with "facts" verified by "scientists" (like the ones who have prooven that the earth is 6000 years old and FLAT like it says in the bible) it is unsurprising that people buy into it. But not everyone wearing a labcoat is a legitamate source (heck, I just bought one from amazon.com)
No taltamir, you misunderstood that - I evidently did not explain what I meant clearly enough. It was a general principle and not solely aimed at CO2 emissions, and I never said once to stop all Co2 emissions immediatly. I know that it would be impossible anyway and that currently our inudstrialized societies depend on it for energy and industry. But I disagree with you on your second point - since when does the environment rely on artificial co2 emissions and would be hurt without them? Anyway, interesting story with the salt, Because I heard that too much salt is not good for you as well, and that someone that grows up in a western society has a much higher average saltintake than say, someone from an amazon tribe. The fact is, that a person who is not used to such high salt levels would probably get sick if he had to eat our normal food, and that there is usually enough salt in everyday foods like bread etc that you can live healthy even if you don't add it extra to flavour your food.
I would like to meet those scientists that have proven that the earth is flat and 6000 years old, would be very curious to hear their reasoning. The fun thing about scientific theories is that they have to hold up to scrutiny and criticism, and usually need empirical evidence. I would really like to talk with them.. better than watching Tv.
Dont patronize me about scientist and labcoats.I don't believe someone just because they have a labcoat. This is a family member and not some stranger.
Don't pass off a GUESS you made on the spot as a fact. The fact is that it has nothing to do with getting used to. A human needs a certain amount of salt, great excess can cause problems (but not as much as great difficiency), salt is one of the most important nutrients. which is why it tastes so good.
Many people in the western world eat too much salt, but the solution is correct salt intake, reducing salt irresponsibly causes more harm than good.
Who is giving you second hand information. He is a LAWYER who is telling you what "SCIENTISTS" told him. Also, there is terminology confusion. Nobody doubts that the earth has gotten warmer the past 30 years. the question is, did humans cause this shift or is it part of the natural cycle.
The general principle is wrong, the general principle of doing something because it MIGHT be good for you is risky because the same thing MIGHT be bad for you. The correct smart principle is to carefully analyze the data and chose the safer course of action.
And all REAL data analysis indicates that the safer course of action is to not cut CO2 emissions, because humans account for less than 3% of yearly emissions, because much of it is from humans breathing and not our industry. Because CO2 emissions do not raise the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere much, instead they cause an increase in growth of algea and other simple photosynthesis performing creatures. Because the temperature fluctuations matches sun activity, and because the environentalists were saying that our pollution is causing global COOLING from the 50-70s... then the earth started warming up (because sun activity started to rise, where it was on a downwards trend before) and they started saying that pollution is causing global warming instead.
Whether it's human-influenced or not is TOTALLY relevant. If it's not, then there is absolutely no reason for us to make any changes in our lifestyle as a result of it.
I disagree with your premise.
That comes across as nothing more than a lame attempt at shutting down debate. He would not need to do that if his point was strong and properly backed up by facts and evidence.
I am not interested in the specious arguments of a philosopher. If you really believed what you wrote above, then you would immediately turn off the power to your household and find your way to the nearest cave. Since you have no proof as to what the impact of your computer will have on the the future of the planet, therefore, you have no right to be using it. Shut it off now!!!
Or put another (religious) way, since you can't prove that God doesn't exist, you had better go to church every day for the rest of your life and pray for your salvation. You can't morally take the chance that you might be wrong on this, so you had better follow every religion known to mankind as well (just to be safe).
Poppycock!
If that was the case, then mankind never should have stepped out of the first cave - if you can't predict the outcome, then you shouldn't make a move, right?
Oh, one more thing. Your brother-in-law must be some sort of a super genious. Much smarter than Einstein - like maybe a Wile E. Coyote. For he has a complete grasp of an extremely complex system by looking at some data and running it through a super computer.
Applying the same logic as the AGW theorists, we should surely be able to predict the future of the economy simply by looking at supply and demand. Clearly you need to only consider one criterion as it relates to a complex system.
Perhaps he can use the same methods to explain to us what effects the automotive bailouts will have on the economy for the next 100 years. That is a much shorter timeframe than the rest of our (supposedly) doomed existence by the effects of AGW.
Anyone who says that they can fully comprehend a complex system with the knowledge that we have today is either a liar or deluded.
While I am open to a persuasive argument on the subject, I have yet to see one.
There are economy-friendliy ways to start reducing emissions. The main problem is simply that it will bother the status quo, and companies will have to move a little.
If you use a semi-hard carbon-cap policy to first establish a maximum of emission the companies are going to be allowed to produce, based on the industry they are in. They are allowed to reject up to a certain amount of pollution before starting to pay a penalty fee (which should be harsh and proportional to the over-polluting, for reasons I will put below).
However, as opposed to most standards you usually give companies, which only penalise them if they don't respect the standards and don't give jackshit if you actually do better than the standards the law sets, companies should be allowed to run a negative balance on their emission. Let's say the best company in the power-production sector emits 20% less than the average power-producing companiy (because of measures taken here and there, and efficient management), they would have 20% of their "carbon credit" unused.
These credits could be sold off in a carbon-credit market, where companies who went over the allowed amount of emission should buy, unless they pay the hefty fine (the fine should be very high, as it will effectively puts an economic ceilling on the carbon credit price, which is innefficient)
Now, if you start your carbon-limitation economy without trying too squeeze too much out of it, you will potentially increase the profits of some more eco-friendly companies while potentially reducing the profits of others, but with a purely economical outlook rather than arbitrary taxes hammered on anybody's head.
Some special projects that would usually be economically nonviable might actually become more attractive for many, as the carbon break granted will fit nicely into the budget.
If you slowly but surely diminish the industry-wide carbon limit (slowly, in order to allow the industry to adapt with proper capital investment, and surely so the industry has no doubt that long-term investment will pay off), you might eventually (10 years) considerably reduce your industry's overall carbon emission without having to break your economy too much in the initial legislation. Business that were ran in environmentally-innefficient ways will progressively have to start to reform, or be put out of business. But other business will boom, as carbon-catcher businesses might start existing in order to provide the market with more carbon-credits.
If your industry struggle too much, the carbon-credit price will go up, and more carbon-catching business will appear. Also, with higher carbon-credit prices, companies will see that there is even more economical insentive to spend in eco-friendly ventures.
I see it as a Green Capitalist dream You don't need the governement to do much in it, as the companies will find themselves the way to turn into greener form of themselves. The government's job will merely setting the ceilling price for the carbon penalty, setting the proper cap for industries based on the production levels (that might be complex, but not impossible).
Anyway, the whole idea is to give enterprises a benefit for doing more than the bare minimum. Right now, the only intensive a company has for doing "more" than what the law requires of it is good PR, or the generosity of its owners. However, not all administrator have the luxury of being generous with their company's asset for the environment (they might get censored by the administrative board, for example). With a money-benefit linked to green investments, it's going to be easier for everybody to do such actions.
Bunnahabbain, how do you think theories about climate are developed in the first place? By looking in the sky and smoking a bong? Or maybe you interpret data and do something with the results, which is of course totally easy peasy and no big deal, anybody can do it.. just collect data from all the weather balloons, and satelites, weather stations all over the globe, buoys in the ocean etc and do all necessary work (without a computer) - im sure you win the next Nobelprice in every category.Go on, show us how its done, just pansies need supercomputers anyway.
Also, economists do alot of calculating. I am sure youll find someone who can just do that if you give him or her enough data, or where do YOU think all the predictions about economic development come from? Politicians must pull them just out their asses, right?
And Albert Einstein lived before the extent of environmental problems became evident and common knowledge or im sure he'd have tossed his two cents in loud and clear - my guess would be along the lines of Hans Jonas. Did you know that natural science evolved about 200 years ago out of philosophy in the first place? Right back then some dudes starting thinking about mankind an nature and the relation between the two, and suddenly their models of explaining the world weren't sufficient anymore. Alexander Humboldt was a philosopher as well. So it is really ignorant to diss a philosopher because he has no degree in natural science, those two disciplines are closely related.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
