we can always have volunteers, and solar panels don't cost nearly as much as some of the other things our government pay for that we can replace with the panels. If money is more valuable than the planet we live on (which mind you is the only planet we can live on for at least 30 years), that shows how corrupt society is
@nyatastic: it's not corruption, it's not our society, it's greed, of the 1%. Oil is essentially free money pouring out of the earth. Oil companies simply buy political influence, and are able to stop any decision that negatively affects the money stream.
Yes and no. To make the many cheap disposable products we demand would be impossible in a developed country with tight environmental laws. Companies tend to leave these markets and produce goods where labor is cheap and they can use the resources for environmental remediation for production or profit. This has allowed many nations to industrialize including the US and U.K., who would not have become what they are today had environmental laws prevented early polluting industries. Green technology economically favors nations with existing infrastructures, funds and educated personnel to develop and maintain the systems. If the US did not have poor nations producing most of its goods the standard of living would be very different. We simply move the pollution to a country that is more desperate for money and willing to trade health for cash, so we can enjoy a clean home and feel superior while still reaping the benefits of polluting.
1Reply
deleted
· 7 years ago
except you're a company who cheat and just do like you do stuff for a cleaner planet (example: car companys)
Good luck getting the entire world to buy into that. Where I live people toss garbage out their windows all the time, I can't tell you how many mcdonalds cups I see along the roads. I realize this is talking about bigger stuff, but if you can't get someone to throw away a cup, there's no way they're going to be on board for paying to switch to cleaner fuels. Let alone convincing someone in a third world country to do that.
Except a lot ways people want to 'clean' it actually just make it just as dirty/polluted or more, just in a different way. Or it will kill the economy which is not good for the planet either.
The general view is that climate regulations that clamp down on certain industries will kill several of those industries.
Also the US can still do climate stuff even if they don't sign the Paris Accord.
it's for nothing but show, the coal industry is dying and leaving the paris accord will do nothing to help that, but the voters of the great pumpkin will always believe what he says, good luck explaining anything to do with climate change to these arm chair scientists who believe what ever hate other ignorant simpletons tell them,,facts don't matter what billy bob told me does
"but the voters of the great pumpkin will always believe what he says, good luck explaining anything to do with climate change to these arm chair scientists who believe what ever hate other ignorant simpletons tell them"
>broad generalization
"facts don't matter what billy bob told me does"
>prejudice
Brilliant.
well the people who believe climate change isn't real pretty much have this thought process and would rather believe what they want to instead of actual facts. don't be so damn butthurt
I pose this question to the people who believe climate change is man made, bad for the planet, and escalating rapidly due to human existence: have you personally measured and analized the inputs and metrics that you commonly refer to as "scientific proof" of the above statement?
Climate change isn't necessarily man made. Besides the annual cycle which is easy to see, there's a 14 year sunspot cycle, a 400 year sun intensity cycle, and a 2000 or 20000 year sun cycle as well.
And if man made effects are doing anything, how can the 99% clean west compensate for the third world countries burning coal without smoke stack scrubbers? If we wreck our economies to get 0.2% better, would that be Ok?
Every developed nation started a series a pre industrial society. After WW2 many countries were infused with aid to build new industry or rebuild what was lost. These newly developing nations are several decades behind in technology and infrastructure. They are where many were to start or after the war, but with greatly different global economic global factors at play. In other words it's like asking why an adult in Madrid should waste money on pants or time on getting to a bathroom when babies and certain others crap themselves or crap where they want. When you get to a point in development and technology it's sorta expected you figure out what to do with your poop, otherwise you've got a works covered in shit with everyone pointing st their neighbor saying "what? He did it too." Or "jimmy got to keep watching tv and poo his diapers, why should I miss the show just to take care of this?"
Also the US can still do climate stuff even if they don't sign the Paris Accord.
>broad generalization
"facts don't matter what billy bob told me does"
>prejudice
Brilliant.
And if man made effects are doing anything, how can the 99% clean west compensate for the third world countries burning coal without smoke stack scrubbers? If we wreck our economies to get 0.2% better, would that be Ok?