posted on May, 3 2008 @ 04:20 PM
reply to post by cpdaman
It wasn't directed toward me, so I won't answer directly, but what you just presented was a false dilemma.
You see, the problem isn't whether or not we should take care of the environment in the interest of public health, that's a no-brainer. The
question is, how? What should be done? Will whatever we accomplish in doing so outweigh the costs? It's a cost-benefit analysis.
The problem with global warming is that it is, very possibly, an imaginary problem. And the means that have been conjured to combat it are generally
very focused. That is, they are usually thought to do very little but maybe fight global warming if it is, in fact, anthropogenic. Harmless, right?
Wrong. We're talking about economically destructive taxation, needless standards, things like that. Economic harm, while sounding benign, actually
causes a great deal of damage. You increase poverty, eliminate jobs, and so on. Additionally, you're taking attention (and very possibly funding)
away from problems that are known to be real.