But I've admitted here that I have taken that position ("global warming is not an imminent, catastrophic issue")
But how can you say that, given the scientific evidence?
Doesn't matter. Economic success is more important than the wellbeing of our species.
No, economic success IS the wellbeing of our species for many of us. We're fat dumb and happy here in nice cozy little Connecticut (I live here too; I'm not attacking you personally). But what about those countries whose GDP is in large part dependent on oil? Let 'em starve? Most people don't know that is even a possibility, but some do, and some just say "Fuck it, why not", as long as we are sticking it to "BIG ENERGY". In just the last couple months, with the pressure on oil prices JUST FROM PRODUCTION FLUCTUATIONS, some country's currencies fluctuated as much as 25% (Turkmenistan, 23%, and Kazakistan, 18% if you must know). Imagine, while you're sitting in your warm home (probably heated or cooled, at least in part, by the very thing we're talking about) if your savings and checking accounts decreased in value 25% overnight. Would it affect you?
This is why I demand thought and insight before we act and not sarcasm, ridicule and snarkiness. For all their moral and intellectual superiority, I don't hear Bill Nye or Al Gore talking about THAT on Jon Stewart's show. Rolling Confirmation Bias - I mean, Rolling Stone - never seems to mention that either when preaching their agenda. NDT either, for that matter (though I rather suspect he knows that; his arguments about science aren't as denigrating and insulting as Nye's, Gore's or RS's).
Here's my problem with your line of thinking on this. All the points you are making are completely valid and are legitimate concerns. These changes will without a doubt fuck some shit up along the way. It will be very shitty. That being said, your arguments today will be the exact same arguments a century from now, and a century after that. This issue can be prolonged indefinitely, literally until we run out of oil to pump from the ground.
Fair point, Chino, and for many you are right. For me, though, not really. I have no vested interest in oil or gas or fossil fuel or whatever else. I really don't. And there are many others who don't. I can't (and won't) speak for Exxon, but I can tell you there are companies out there (Siemens, GE) that don't either. I guarantee you (and I have insight into this) that Siemens and GE couldn't care less about fossil fuel. The second - and I mean, literally, the very second - that it becomes cheaper and more efficient to operate a freight train using something other than fossil fuel and they will be there with bells on. It's going to happen. It's happening already. Punishing industries that we (read, you) don't think share our "moral imperative" (which is silly, because corporations are only tools to be used) isn't the way to go. I can write a treatise about how the environmental movement tried "punishment" and it didn't work; it was only when regulators realized that it wasn't sinful to allow people to actually make money on contaminated properties that they started to be cleaned up. Now, your local Dunkin Donuts was probably an environmentally regulated property 15 years ago.
These nations whose economy rely on oil, what'd they rely on before they started selling it? I'm seriously asking. If it was a good or service that disappeared, they found oil to fill the niche. It probably sucked as they were transitioning from one to the other, but they figured it out. If they had a good thing going and switched to oil just because of the money it could generate, then they could temporarily revert back to whatever it was that was making them money prior to selling the oil. Also, it is not our fault that these companies found one thing to make them money and put all of their eggs in one basket. There have been warning signs for decades that oil with one day be phased out. If not due to lack of demand, it will be because we run out. What do these people do then?
Some, nothing. Some, survived on the largess of others, but were simply pawns in a global game of "Risk". First the Roman empire, then Prussia, then the Soviet Union. Or perhaps China. I'm not sure it's relevant; but we're not talking about incremental change here, we're talking transformational change. The railroads being supplanted by the airlines didn't change the fact that most of the Soviet Union still to this day relies on rail for commercial transport (as does the US).
Also what you're missing is that the "oil" companies will rebrand as "energy" companies. A couple have tried, and the proof is in the pudding: it's still a better business model to sell fossil fuel than have alternate energy products that look great, answer the global warming bell (conceptually) but sit on the shelf because they do not allow others - not BIG ENERGY - to continue to do business. But none of those companies are going to sit there and say "Oh well, it was a good run. Turn out the lights, we're done.".
What good will it be postponing worldwide green infrastructure if the countries we were trying to save economically can no longer survive because of hostile living conditions or displacement?
But I'm not suggesting "postponing" anything. I'm suggesting we don't ram it down people's throats because it "sounds good" to one slice of the demographic without considering all the variables. I don't disagree with any of your conceptual points; I disagree with the arbitrary and self-serving valuation of ONE variable at the expense of all others (and the exclusion of several outright). I get that Bush is not the guy to be referenced in a discussion like this, but he did one thing right: back in 2004, the EPA implemented emissions standards, in tiers. Tier III was achievable, but it was a stretch, and it was expensive. At the time, Tier IV was a pipe dream. The technology didn't exist, and there was no line of sight to it. But - at least in the rail industry - the major manufacturers tackled it. And lo and behold, one major player rolled out their first Tier IV locomotive not long ago, in advance of the deadline. And they have a healthy market, they'll make decent money on that, and they have changed the industry by raising the bar, and global warming gets a small bite taken out of it.
I like you, Chino, I think you're smart and you're willing to consider points of view different than yours. I respect that. But many don't; it's as much a chance to take another swipe at "BIG [Insert industry]" as it is any altruistic endeavor to save the planet. There are two developments in modern politics that I abhor: 'red state/blue state' and "BIG [Insert industry]" Neither one helps the situation, and neither one leads to solutions, only to more divisiveness.
Topic: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before (Read 63487 times)
