Why is it that some feel if we don't have an immediate, complete replacement for oil, right now, that we should just give up on every alternative fuel source? I'm tired of people choosing one source such as electric cars, wind power, or solar power and stating that since that one option can't replace oil and coal that they are a waste of time. No we can't completely stop using fuel that is damaging our planet now but we'll never be able to if we don't keep trying. Why is is so difficult to see that it would be much better for us and the generations after us to limit and eventually stop the use of finite and polluting resources? Why is it so difficult to see that it would be so much better to develop and use infinite and less or non-polluting resources? Who care if global is real or not or if it is real who cares what has caused it? We are polluting the earth. This is fact, everything else is crap! And lastly, why in the world is this a political issue?
Why is it that some feel if we don't have an immediate, complete replacement for oil, right now, that we should just give up on every alternative fuel source? I'm tired of people choosing one source such as electric cars, wind power, or solar power and stating that since that one option can't replace oil and coal that they are a waste of time. No we can't completely stop using fuel that is damaging our planet now but we'll never be able to if we don't keep trying. Why is is so difficult to see that it would be much better for us and the generations after us to limit and eventually stop the use of finite and polluting resources? Why is it so difficult to see that it would be so much better to develop and use infinite and less or non-polluting resources? Who care if global is real or not or if it is real who cares what has caused it? We are polluting the earth. This is fact, everything else is crap! And lastly, why in the world is this a political issue?
Why is it that some feel if we don't have an immediate, complete replacement for oil, right now, that we should just give up on every alternative fuel source? I'm tired of people choosing one source such as electric cars, wind power, or solar power and stating that since that one option can't replace oil and coal that they are a waste of time. No we can't completely stop using fuel that is damaging our planet now but we'll never be able to if we don't keep trying. Why is is so difficult to see that it would be much better for us and the generations after us to limit and eventually stop the use of finite and polluting resources? Why is it so difficult to see that it would be so much better to develop and use infinite and less or non-polluting resources? Who care if global is real or not or if it is real who cares what has caused it? We are polluting the earth. This is fact, everything else is crap! And lastly, why in the world is this a political issue?
Why is it that some feel if we don't have an immediate, complete replacement for oil, right now, that we should just give up on every alternative fuel source? I'm tired of people choosing one source such as electric cars, wind power, or solar power and stating that since that one option can't replace oil and coal that they are a waste of time. No we can't completely stop using fuel that is damaging our planet now but we'll never be able to if we don't keep trying. Why is is so difficult to see that it would be much better for us and the generations after us to limit and eventually stop the use of finite and polluting resources? Why is it so difficult to see that it would be so much better to develop and use infinite and less or non-polluting resources? Who care if global is real or not or if it is real who cares what has caused it? We are polluting the earth. This is fact, everything else is crap! And lastly, why in the world is this a political issue?
\
Follow the money. All the political power behind AGW supports research that backs their power grab.
AGW is BS.
Chlorofluorocarbon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia\
Follow the money. All the political power behind AGW supports research that backs their power grab.
AGW is BS.
I thought is was going to be a discussion about why GW is a political issue, not a pro-environazi rant.Why is it that some feel if we don't have an immediate, complete replacement for oil, right now, that we should just give up on every alternative fuel source? I'm tired of people choosing one source such as electric cars, wind power, or solar power and stating that since that one option can't replace oil and coal that they are a waste of time. No we can't completely stop using fuel that is damaging our planet now but we'll never be able to if we don't keep trying. Why is is so difficult to see that it would be much better for us and the generations after us to limit and eventually stop the use of finite and polluting resources? Why is it so difficult to see that it would be so much better to develop and use infinite and less or non-polluting resources? Who care if global is real or not or if it is real who cares what has caused it? We are polluting the earth. This is fact, everything else is crap! And lastly, why in the world is this a political issue?
I thought is was going to be a discussion about why GW is a political issue, not a pro-environazi rant.
I think the problem stems from a general selfishness/shortsightedness issue that is so common in our species. From an evolutionary standpoint, being greedy and selfish is a beneficial survival trait. That instinct translates into modern life by how we try to improve our own quality of life, consuming as many resources as we are able. Unfortunately, now that our technological capabilities take away a lot of the immediate, short-term survival problems, this instinct is becoming counterproductive to the larger picture: survival of the species as a whole. (no, I'm not saying we're going extinct)
So how does that relate to politics? People want to consume. It's just the way we are. Anything that runs contrary to that desire will be met with resistance. This is especially prevalent in America partially due to our culture of independence and individualism. We tend to resist being told what to do, especially when it comes from a government body. It takes a pretty powerful reason or influence to get us to accept limitations on what we can do or buy.
Adding to all of this is money. A cleaner planet is going to cost money. Lots of it. We don't like that idea. Worse, some very powerful people have a very powerful financial stake in the status quo. They can throw a lot of money towards delaying the changeover to renewables, and every year they manage to do so is worth billions of dollars to them.
So, I'd say it's a combination of culture, psychology, manipulation, and some good old fashioned team rivalry. Them damned liberals support global warming science, therefore I must oppose it!
I think the problem stems from a general selfishness/shortsightedness issue that is so common in our species. From an evolutionary standpoint, being greedy and selfish is a beneficial survival trait. That instinct translates into modern life by how we try to improve our own quality of life, consuming as many resources as we are able. Unfortunately, now that our technological capabilities take away a lot of the immediate, short-term survival problems, this instinct is becoming counterproductive to the larger picture: survival of the species as a whole. (no, I'm not saying we're going extinct)
So how does that relate to politics? People want to consume. It's just the way we are. Anything that runs contrary to that desire will be met with resistance. This is especially prevalent in America partially due to our culture of independence and individualism. We tend to resist being told what to do, especially when it comes from a government body. It takes a pretty powerful reason or influence to get us to accept limitations on what we can do or buy.
Adding to all of this is money. A cleaner planet is going to cost money. Lots of it. We don't like that idea. Worse, some very powerful people have a very powerful financial stake in the status quo. They can throw a lot of money towards delaying the changeover to renewables, and every year they manage to do so is worth billions of dollars to them.
So, I'd say it's a combination of culture, psychology, manipulation, and some good old fashioned team rivalry. Them damned liberals support global warming science, therefore I must oppose it!
I always picture those that bitch about taking care of the environment as hoarders that live four feet deep in crap.
Whatever. It's about people wanting feel like their lives are meaningful, that they are part of something important? What's more important than saving the Earth?
Or, you know, people who care about people other than themselves.
That's actually a bit of the old BS. It's petty arrogance and egotism that "I'm helping so I MUST be right" going on... no different then one of the angry church ladies chasing people around with their canes telling people they are wrong.
Or, you know, people who care about people other than themselves.
I'd say the arrogant view is the one that our actions have no consequences.
No one's ever claimed man doesn't impact his environment, but thanks for proving you aren't an honest person.
We are saying MAN isn't having a global impact in the way you people do, and further more that man can impact the climate in any meaningful way through political actions.
Global warming is a political issue because of the argument over government intervention in the economy. Those opposed to global warming suspect that it is just a back door means to put ever increasing restrictions on economic action, possibly ending in a government take-over of the economy. Some of the more extreme parts of the green movement only reinforce this suspicion.
Of course, I think it is possible to be in favor of smaller government in general and still acknowledge the global warming problem. However, I also think that if we're going to do things like subsidize alternative energies we need to be careful not to unduly bias certain forms over others. Technological advancement is unpredictable and which energy source will end up being the best is best determined by the market, so the typical green opposition to nuclear is a problem for me. Also I'm actually in favoring of slowing down global warming not stopping it entirely. This is because the end result of global warming is good for life on Earth in general as decreasing the amount of arctic and sub-arctic climate means its replacement with temperate zone (and possibly an expansion of sub-tropical north and south, though the areas closer to the equator are not receiving much warming) which are areas that produce more life and more biodiversity than the colder climates. The problem is the transition. A fast transition produces all kinds of problems for both humans and other species. The current rate is too fast and should be slowed, but a more gradual warming would probably be a boon to humanity and likely life in general in the long run.
We need more trees because they consume carbon dioxide, right? Wouldn't they also neutralize carbon dioxide?
Why is it that some feel if we don't have an immediate, complete replacement for oil, right now, that we should just give up on every alternative fuel source? I'm tired of people choosing one source such as electric cars, wind power, or solar power and stating that since that one option can't replace oil and coal that they are a waste of time. No we can't completely stop using fuel that is damaging our planet now but we'll never be able to if we don't keep trying. Why is is so difficult to see that it would be much better for us and the generations after us to limit and eventually stop the use of finite and polluting resources? Why is it so difficult to see that it would be so much better to develop and use infinite and less or non-polluting resources? Who care if global is real or not or if it is real who cares what has caused it? We are polluting the earth. This is fact, everything else is crap! And lastly, why in the world is this a political issue?
Im really curious. Where do you find ANYONE claiming what you stated in your opening few paragraphs?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?