Whist reading the many threads on these two topics over the last few weeks, I found myself seeing many similarities within the two.
On GW and the changes we are seeing, I think we need to break it down now and make a decision on what we are going to do. At the current moment, the
Global Economy is grinding to a Halt. A recession is inevitable(well i believe the US is already in one), some are saying a depression may be
possible. People are predicting Economic Gloom and Doom. Governments around the Globe have funneled Vast amounts of money into the markets to keep
them, and Institutions alive.
People are asking, why should we throw vast amounts of Dollars(OUR TAX MONEY) at this problem? And the experts are saying, "well if you
don't do this, it will all end". But other experts are saying "let the free market sort it out, thats the way its always been, it a natural
process". There was confusion, people did'nt know which experts to believe, the people said "No BailOut". The US government( Lobbied by my
government here in my home Australia, and in Japan, UK, Europe) called on the USA to pass the bailout plan. It failed, Markets plumeted.
They then planned(and were succesful) a way to bring about this essential rescue because they said it "was to dangerous to do nothing".
There are many similarities here to the GW debate. Simply put, One is over money, the other....our planet. For many years now GW sceptics have argued
that any policy changes would have drastic economic effects on the standard of living, jobs, wealth and the life that we are accustomed too etc . But
GW advocates are saying well, millions of people will lose there homes as water rises, people will lose jobs due to droughts, costs will soar due to
water shortages, storms, floods etc etc. if we do nothing about the warming. Well....the economy is taking care of that now. So do these arguements
against GW policies still apply.
My point is, is that whilst these are two very different topics, the similarities are uncanny.
Both were predicted problems.
We have been warned about both these problems.
We are observing the results of these predictions. And the consequences.
Both have experts predicting and end to the way we live, whilst there are others saying, its not that bad.
Those that made the predictions have been largely ignored by Governments and Industries that have held onto a Buisness as usual attitude, or a lets
wait and see approach.
Both problems require Governmental Intervention. Both Problems require Corporate responsibility and action. Both have expensive solutions.
Both problems are not understood properly by the average citizen and doubt and uncertainty has seen slow action, or none at all.
Both problems have experts saying, we cannot leave it too late.
Both problem are or will deeply alter the way we live and do buisness.
Both require sacrifices by the you and me, the Tax payer.
And there is a risk that the experts may be wrong about thier solutions, and the predictions if nothing is done.
Both are viewed by some, as one big scam.
Both are viewed by some, as a get rich quick scheme for the few.
Both are viewed by some as scare campaigns for the promotion of an alternative agenda.
Both are view by some here on ATS as a conspiracy to defraud the average citizen.
Both will see changes put in place by our Govenments, both will see Government intervention.
Both are debated with great passion and emotion. From political, scientific/economic and personal opinions.
Onto GW, whilst it is highly controversial to make claims such as :a drastic climactic upheaval that will result in a global catastrophe
will occur, is occuring, unless we make changes. We, all of us on this planet seem to be on two sides. Those that want action taken(because we believe
man is the cause) and those that do not want action(those sceptical of the science, or those that accept the warming/climate change observed as
something natural and so this requires no action. Both sides need to watch this short ten minute video.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.