Oh climate change will probably kill billions of people worldwide many of whom had the least of anyone to do with causing it, so one's absolute freedom may not be the most important thing here. Island nations are certainly drowning.
However I certainly agree the problem is extremely large and complex. Many things have simple solutions, but I don't see climate change being one.
Trees don't grow on money
With a world population of approxiamately 7.6 billion......my casual emission......is statistically meaningless to your externalities. But you are free to assuage your own guilt anyway you see fit.Originally Posted by jp1
that's certainly true, jp1 probably, and quite reasonably so from the context, assumed the discussion was one of public policy though (on a national or even global level even) and the behaviors and incentives that affect whole societies, which IS likely statistically meaningful.With a world population of approxiamately 7.6 billion......my casual emission......is statistically meaningless to your externalities.
Trees don't grow on money
I suppose my complaint is that whole societies are made up of individuals and enforcement is necessarily against individuals as societies are not gifted as such with freedoms. What I am curious about is who makes the analysis. Who determines if one is in compliance with the expected actions that are climate worthy? Who has determined for instance, if jp1 is more climate friendly than I am? And is this by one minute, by one hour, by one day, by one year or by a lifetime? As far as the earth is concerned, my life time is but a blink of an eye. So who is so emboldened to say to me that my certain action is encroaching on the well being of jp1 when for all we know....I may have contributed far less to the “destruction” of the planet over lifetime than he. My opinions do not matter....my quantitative actions do. So go do what you must do, turn your convictions inward and heal the planet.....do not oppress me.
I am not sure that I totally follow the arguments, but you sort of get into a conundrum when you say individual actions are meaningless, but regulation by the government interferes with individual freedoms.
Of course there has to be some agreement that human related climate change is real and important, which doesn't seem to fit mainstream conservative values.
I'm also not sure that individual acts can be looked at as unique events. There are waves of activity that might have been thought of as "geenie" at a time and are now common place. Everyone I know of recycles these days and driving hybrids or electric cars is common place. Going from incandescent to fluorescent and now LED lighting might have some personal economic value, but the payback really isn't that huge. I still don't even know if in the big scheme of thing it matters significantly, but a lot of people do. It's not just one person, but groups of people. My comparison was voting in national elections, where in almost all cases one vote is not going to matter, but still it is the right thing to do.
Last edited by Rogar; 12-6-17 at 9:02pm.
For me the comparison that seems most apt is to what happened back in the 70's/80's when governments decided to start impinging on individual freedoms by forcing people to reduce the amount of toxic poisons they were spewing into the air and water. This was an easy sell because people were well aware of the harm that pollution was causing. Heck, when I was a kid growing up in Denver there were winter days that one couldn't see the mountains because of the literal "brown cloud" of auto exhaust. Selling the importance of dealing with climate change at a societal level is more difficult. Unless you live in one of the coastal south florida neighborhoods that floods at high tide even on sunny days or have noticed that you can start gardening a month earlier every spring it's easy to deny what's happening. But the reality is that those sunny day flooded streets are every bit as dire of a warning as the Cuyahoga river catching on fire.
I doubt anyone denies what's happening, the conflict comes in the assignment of blame. If the earth has warmed and cooled repeatedly over the course of it's existence, is it fair to assign it all to human activity after declaring (for political purposes) that the science is settled?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
I don't know that it's ALL being assigned to human activity, but certainly the science is pretty settled that a fair chunk of it is. I suppose some people aren't willing to accept that. But then there are also people who don't accept the science that says the earth is round. And isn't it in society's best interest to try and mitigate the damages as best we can. Especially considering that, as was mentioned above, the people likely to be worst hurt by it are those who had the least to do with causing it.
I have wondered why there hasn't been some sort of special investigation by some supposedly non-partisan (if that is possible) agency of the government where science experts present all sides of the argument, it's debated and an official or formal opinion is offered. Something like the Scopes Trial, a congressional committee, or even something like the Mueller investigation. I suppose guys like Pruitt has some basic understanding of the issues, but I don't think he is free of special interest biased. I could strongly suspect Trump and some of his supporters do not have a have a clue of the basics from both sides. In all fairness, the same could be said of the opposites in government. It's not a partisan issue and there are facts that are debatable and others that leave little doubt.
Oil, coal, and natural gas-related businesses have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and they have the money to buy legislators (and a handful of scientists), so there you go.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote