Originally posted by DINSTAAR
This is true of all sides. Politicians thinking they are scientists, scientists delving into politics and economics and laypeople delving into all
Here's what I know for sure
-By their own science, recommended measures to stop climate change are fairly ineffective
-Due to my own education in economics and personal knowledge of basic economic principles, I know that the recommended policy changes are counter to
sound and sustainable economics.
-Just as I do not know much about climate science, scientists need to know their limits in economics.
-Al Gore is not a scientist or an economist and has benefited greatly from acting like both in recent years.
Whether humans are directly causing the warming or not, the proposed policy decisions are erroneous.
Anti-Climate people simply do not have science with them to claim it is not man made or the climate change is not happening other than private blog
articles or fox news propaganda.
Anti-Climate people? So if you disagree with the proposed policy changes you are against the climate. This is why the discussion of climate change is
going no where.
Of course the science is going to be questioned when the recommended solutions are batsh*t crazy.
I think the term layman is used as somebody who doesn't really follow the issues more than the average amount. So, the layman wouldn't know much
aside from headline news about climate change, economics or politics and would probably know more about things like sports and/or celebrity gossip.
Now there are non-official civilians who take more active interests in such things, as most of us here are, and I'd say we're a decent step or two
above the layman in an advanced knowledge of the world. And I don't really mean that in an elitist way, but more so as a matter-of-fact.
As for promoting sustainable economics versus sustainable lifestyles... I really think that's somewhat of a false dichotomy. The two are intertwined,
because at some point an unsustainable lifestyle (ecologically) will pull the rug right out from under any economic system in place and render it
moot. Not to mention the basic/every-day links like resources, weather, natural disasters, etc. and their obvious/direct effects on the economy. Our
first priority should be ecological sustainability, since the living/natural environment is the most BASIC necessity to human life/welfare. If the
environment collapses, humans will soon follow, whether in part or in whole.
I also think it's an exaggeration to say that every proposed alternative or solution to climate change/environmental destruction is "bat#" crazy.
In fact, that's absolutely untrue. Sure there are some crazy, dangerous, unworkable ideas out there, that's the nature of invention. However, there
are very intelligent, real and feasible things we must do in order to reduce our footprint on this planet. Otherwise we'll continue to head off the
cliff and that won't be good for any living thing.
An ecological/economic symbiosis must be reached, we very well may have to experiment with and adopt radical/fundamentally new ways of living on the
planet. The nearer we get to ecological tipping points, the more we will need to favor the ecological to the economic. If we are to be smart and think
long-term as a society, we'll figure out a way to accommodate both realms. As the cost/benefit ratio to humans and the environment is threatened more
by ecological destruction than by economic collapse, uglier risks will have to be taken if no substantial global action is seen soon. This is not
preferable, whether enacted top-down by governments or bottom-up by grassroots resistance (though I definitely prefer the latter
). If we consider
ourselves so intelligent/inventive as a species, then we must put our money where our mouth is and actually INVENT/experiment, break civilization's
molds and move beyond it.