Quote:
|
Originally Posted by headsplice
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
We won't have proof until the 'experiment' is complete. That is, until there's conclusive proof that we're causing major climatic change. Unfortunately, in all likelihood that will mean it's too late to do anything and everyone will be a BAD position (worst-case scenario: all of life on the planet dies). Now, we know that lots of particulate emissions are bad (they're bad for us breathing, in specific). So, if we can reduce the amount of particulate emissions in the atmosphere, while potentially saving ourselves from extinction, then why err on the side of extinction?
|
At what cost is break point for determining imposed restrictions?
Make a rule/rules governing how much dirt you can generate?
People in favor will probably already be below the specified limit.
People that are not, will ignore or circumvent the rule.
What about people not in your juristiction?.....Third World countries or emerging economies?
Implementation of noble causes is always the problem with them.
Can we impact on the climactic changes that are already in motion?
If we have in fact caused it, is the pooch already screwed?
Are we kidding ourselves by saying if we do
this we'll save mankind, when in fact we should have done
that?
Face it, Global Warming isn't likely to kill me or you. Look at the time frames in the predictions....common numbers are 2050AD and 2100AD for milestones in changes..... even further for catastrophic events. What we're looking at is the future of the human race, not ourselves.
Now look around and ask yourself.......are they worth saving?
OK, I'm kidding..... but seriously, imposing changes because they make you feel warm and fuzzy, without knowing if the changes are actually doing any good, will meet stiff resistance.