Two Years To Save The World
from the not-so-bad,-right? dept
A new study has shown that, despite some dire predictions by governments around the world, it really wouldn’t be that costly to stop global warming over the long term. The study suggests that the world economy will be five times as large as it is today in 100 years. However, if we take some time to fix the atmospher, it would take 102 years to reach that point (according to the researchers). The study is designed to contradict government officials who say it would create a worldwide recession if we had to spend time fixing the atmosphere.
Comments on “Two Years To Save The World”
Let's Get Our Priorities Straight
Whenever I hear the argument that the economy would be hurt by true environmental stewardship, I often wonder why we don?t argue from the opposite perspective, i.e. The environment would be hurt if the economy is prosperous, therefore we will forego some degree of economic growth. Why? Because no economy can exist without a healthy environment. Why? Because a healthy environment is necessary to sustain the expanding population, upon which economic growth is predicated.
We simply have our priorities confused.
It could fix the recession
Cleaning up our nest could be an opportunity for improving the economy.
Replacing outdated and high polluting autos, appliances, heavy equipment, factories and such, would provide work. People working at good paying jobs spend money on new things.
the last cow
Unfortunately it seems that the direction the world is guided will have us down to the last cow carrying a old oil drum full of water around to all the thirsty people before anything really major will happen.
Hell we wanted to tap one of our own wildlife refuges just for the oil even though studies said there is only enough there for 2 full days of use for the entire country.
Many of the words problems right now would be lessened or erased completely if we just got off the oil kick. We just need to get a clean, green-friendly, renewable resource that cant be taken hostage by the rich folks.
No Subject Given
No Subject Given
Global Warming is a NON event. Research historical temperatures of the planet and comapre that ot toda – the planet is cooler. Variations in temperature are NORMAL.
Re: No Subject Given
1) Back up that statement.
2) If you do have that research…I’m not convinced that’s true. If you have that research was it biased? Paid for by oil companies?
3) While it MAY be true (and I would hope that it IS true that Global Warming is a NON event, one less thing to worry about)…Global warming is NOT the ONLY consequence of pollution that we have to worry about.
There is no such thing as global warming. Period. The planet naturally goes through warmer and cooler phases. Enviro-commies use the phrase as an excuse to steal money from productive entities and give it to non-productive entities.
Either way, The Captain still has a good point – I’m sure that pumping all that crap into the air doesn’t help anything, and that the environment was better off before us. Also, getting off the oil kick shifts the world power balance in a large scale away from oil-providing nations, which would augment world politics (though whether that would be good or bad is left for the philosophers). Anyway, point is, reducing pollution is a good thing.
warmer is better
It used to be fern trees and warm weather plants in my part of Montana! I cant have my t rex running about but it would be nice to grow some subtropical plants like there used to be here. OOOps I guess that means global warming oh my!
Time’s change so more data needs looking into, and at that not made up data!