There may be global warming, but it isn't automatically caused by man. There have been several climate changes over the millennia.
If it does exist and is caused by man, wrecking the US and European economies to get rid of the last bit of carbon use pales to the greenhouse gas emissions of China and India, but we're totally obsessed with regulating the west and ignoring the east. It may end up being that the west's technology comes to the rescue, so I'd hate to squelch all the development there via having government control of the whole economy. Have you seen how well that worked for the USSR? They couldn't even feed their own people, much less have such an abundance that they could export. And what developments like iPhones or wifi have come from government comtroled economies?
We ant control what other people do, we can influence it but cannot control it. There is also a disparity in industry. The US exported most of our most polluting heavy industry to be supplied by other countries- this wasn’t done mainly for the environment although laxer regulations in other countries did help drive the profit motive. Lower costs was a prime force, and shoving our pollution on other countries so they can mass produce cheap items for us and then slamming them with cost raising environmental measures that don’t work on that scale is a bit... insane? Counter productive to the operating principals of our economy? But...
As for state ran economies.... I mean...
- jet fighters
- mass produced helicopters
- extra atmospheric high altitude bombers
- stealth air craft
- guided missiles
- Anechoic tiles
- Fanta (soda)
- The most common design and features of gas cans world wide for over 60 years
- Particle board
- methadone
- radar and a WHOLE bunch of electronics.
- Pressurized flight suits
- a bunch of medical and surgical procedures
It’s a looong list man. Do some light reading, but do you really think the USSR and other state ran economies didn’t make any major inventions or provide the basis for what later became modern technologies?
Please explain what you mean by that statement. Who does it conflict with, and what do these people want to be true. The most obvious answer would be the people who have invested in fossil fuels, but I have a feeling that's not who this is directed towards.
P.S. I'm not expecting an answer from the guest that posted this, but still, if anyone agrees, I'd like to hear the point.
I think guest posts are actually bot posts. It didn't used to be that way but now it's you try to post something as a guest, it never makes it.
,
To give you one example for your question, my dad does not believe humans are responsible for climate change. He was vehemently against the whole "idea" that the climate was changing but fortunately he's smart and can read unbiased, scientific data. Science can't say for certain right now that humans are causing climate change, it can just make it plainly obvious that a drastic change is occurring.
,
(I didn't dv you.)
The president of the United States is on record saying (recently, not 20 years ago..) that climate change was invented by the Chinese to undermine our economy. He dismissed a report of over 300 government agencies that was commissioned by his administration because after “reading some of it” he “didn’t believe it.” So theres a prominent example of who doesn’t believe in climate change (and thinks windmill noise causes cancer.) The truth is that it isn’t petroleum pushers who care. They stand to make huge gains in the future as most advanced and green tech relies on petroleum and they are in a position to write off their old refineries and expand their energy infrastructure to alternate sources- so what do they care what kind of energy you are using if they still control it?....
.... coal is a big one. It’s a dinosaur literally and figuratively. Outside coal fibers power plants and limited use in industry as a raw material it isn’t used. That has impacted “coal regions” and so it’s in their benefit for coal to remain and grow, and any politician seeking a group in need of a “champion” simply has to appease those people and they have an instant political base. So many politicians benefit in that way- and also from heavy industry. Industries like manufacturing which are compelled by law to maintain a minimum wage and benefits package so can only cut labor costs through automation and giving more work to less people. These industries top lists of polluters as do transport. Vital industries to the economy and function of the nation- but also very rich and powerful. Politicians don’t tend to do well career or finance wise when they piss those guys off.
Obviously it is in those people’s interests financially to not believe in man made climate change, or to believe in secret and deny in public. And of course- the high costs of early adoption to new technologies and the limitations of new “greener” tech impact prove and service. This doesn’t just effect business- but the average American who is used to plentiful, fast, and cheap. Climate change means a lot of cost and change for everyone. Old jobs disappear and new ones pop up. Change is instability. Room for new players to become dominant forces in industry and politics and power and wealth. We see money shuffle. We see Detroit Die and the Silicon valley become a new American economic center, and then it repeats all over.
Old industries and economic centers fall to ruin as change kicks in. People lose property value and job security and wages while others gain it. So basically- people who don’t want change and the instability t brings are motivated in general. People that are afraid to lose what they have and don’t want to or can’t adapt or relocate to follow the ever shifting tides of industrial change. Tech workers can spend hundreds of thousands on degrees to learn things that are outdated when they graduate, then spend the rest of their professional lives taking classes and learning just to stay relevant. That’s a scary idea to most people who are used to the idea that you show up every day and just master a craft as you go as opposed to always being behind the next new thing to learn.
So it’s a combination of people who have every reason towards a subconscious bias against believing in man made climate change- and yes. Many who push hardest about it are likely less interested in saving earth than they are in being st the forefront of a new frontier where they can establish themselves as the next juggernaut of a coming industry. Companies tend to hate government interference when it restricts them and love it when it holds back competition or forces people to adopt their goods and services. But short answer: the President is an example.
If it does exist and is caused by man, wrecking the US and European economies to get rid of the last bit of carbon use pales to the greenhouse gas emissions of China and India, but we're totally obsessed with regulating the west and ignoring the east. It may end up being that the west's technology comes to the rescue, so I'd hate to squelch all the development there via having government control of the whole economy. Have you seen how well that worked for the USSR? They couldn't even feed their own people, much less have such an abundance that they could export. And what developments like iPhones or wifi have come from government comtroled economies?
- jet fighters
- mass produced helicopters
- extra atmospheric high altitude bombers
- stealth air craft
- guided missiles
- Anechoic tiles
- Fanta (soda)
- The most common design and features of gas cans world wide for over 60 years
- Particle board
- methadone
- radar and a WHOLE bunch of electronics.
- Pressurized flight suits
- a bunch of medical and surgical procedures
It’s a looong list man. Do some light reading, but do you really think the USSR and other state ran economies didn’t make any major inventions or provide the basis for what later became modern technologies?
P.S. I'm not expecting an answer from the guest that posted this, but still, if anyone agrees, I'd like to hear the point.
,
To give you one example for your question, my dad does not believe humans are responsible for climate change. He was vehemently against the whole "idea" that the climate was changing but fortunately he's smart and can read unbiased, scientific data. Science can't say for certain right now that humans are causing climate change, it can just make it plainly obvious that a drastic change is occurring.
,
(I didn't dv you.)