Hardly. We'd only shoot ourselves in the foot while big polluters step it up to meet the higher demand for goods that we'll have to import from them instead of producing ourselves with a lower carbon footprint.
You can't really win on here with this post. In a perfect world , we could eliminate carbon fuels without economic devastating effects. Germany seems to be having a bit of a problem going green. Until the rich decide not to screw the poor, I don't think that there's going to be a solution.
China is going to be on 100% renewable by 2025. They then plan to basically give India the infrastructure and technology with no down payment. They plan on selling that tech to the entire world by 2040 and have the entire world off oil and gas by 2050.
Guess what? They've hit every goddamn benchmark they've set.
This doesn't mean the end of oil production, some things from plastics to asphalt are still needed.
You think the rest of the world will buy into it so easily? If it works, the transition will not be quick or easy. Assuming it doesn't collapse under it's own weight or get killed for the simple facts that infrastructure doesn't support it and too many jobs would be lost for it.
.
Not nearly as many people are skeptical of climate change as you think. We just take a minute to think it through. You people are largely against nuclear energy, one of the few actually viable alternative energy sources. Most of your solutions are prohibitively expensive, ineffective, job killing, or actually cause more harm than it curbs, and for decades we've been hearing how global cooling and then global warming will destroy the world in only a few years. Cry wolf, much?
Nevermind that the countries actually putting out the most smog have little to no interest reducing their output, making any sacrifice by us futile and vain.
▼
deleted
· 5 years ago
It’s better to have a healthy planet than have more jobs. There’s plenty of ways to make jobs out of clean energy and ways to make it as inexpensive as possible. Sometimes you have to volunteer to be the catalyst in change instead of waiting for someone else to be, and considering America is one of the biggest oil producers and consumers in the world (considering its more common to drive a car than take public transport here unlike a lot of countries, thus resulting in America having a huge carbon footprint), we would be the perfect country to begin to switch to clean energy and render fuel and nuclear (which is incredibly damaging) obsolete. There’s more to life than money and jobs.
America is big. We need to drive to get to places. Why? Because my family's home is a twenty minute drive from the nearest grocery store at thirty-five to fifty miles an hour. And for our area that's pretty close.
Nuclear energy is safe so long as Soviets aren't running things and procedures are followed.
There may be more to life than money or jobs, but there is no life without money and jobs.
You aren't sacrificing a damn thing, you're giving up other's livelihoods, homes, dreams, and everything else because you'd rather subscribe to a nice thought than face a harsh reality. You'd understand when you're starving because of the policies you advocate, but thankfully there are enough practical people in charge willing to work with reality over hope.
Nuclear energy ftw, specifically thorium reactors though, can't melt down and don't produce NEARLY the waste.... and we've had the technology since the 60's
There are no money or jobs if there is no life. Causing a mass extinction doesn't seem like a good idea. It doesn't take much to cause a mass extinction, as ecosystems are so interwoven and as biodiversity decreases it actually snowballs as things become less resistant to plagues. Animals can migrate, sure, plants have a much harder time. As crop failures increase, we're going to have problems.
Guess what? They've hit every goddamn benchmark they've set.
This doesn't mean the end of oil production, some things from plastics to asphalt are still needed.
When it doesn't, we'll be ready to sell to them.
.
Not nearly as many people are skeptical of climate change as you think. We just take a minute to think it through. You people are largely against nuclear energy, one of the few actually viable alternative energy sources. Most of your solutions are prohibitively expensive, ineffective, job killing, or actually cause more harm than it curbs, and for decades we've been hearing how global cooling and then global warming will destroy the world in only a few years. Cry wolf, much?
Nevermind that the countries actually putting out the most smog have little to no interest reducing their output, making any sacrifice by us futile and vain.
Nuclear energy is safe so long as Soviets aren't running things and procedures are followed.
There may be more to life than money or jobs, but there is no life without money and jobs.
You aren't sacrificing a damn thing, you're giving up other's livelihoods, homes, dreams, and everything else because you'd rather subscribe to a nice thought than face a harsh reality. You'd understand when you're starving because of the policies you advocate, but thankfully there are enough practical people in charge willing to work with reality over hope.
There are no money or jobs if there is no life. Causing a mass extinction doesn't seem like a good idea. It doesn't take much to cause a mass extinction, as ecosystems are so interwoven and as biodiversity decreases it actually snowballs as things become less resistant to plagues. Animals can migrate, sure, plants have a much harder time. As crop failures increase, we're going to have problems.