|
|
What's it Gonna be, Boy, Yes or No?
So, do we combat global warming, or do we help babies live by providing the world with clean drinking water and proper sewers? The answer would be somewhat simpler if scientists could agree on what global warming actually means, and provided solutions that would actually work. It would be easier still if it weren't so expensive to implement the former, and so cheap to implement the latter.
I think the answers people give will tell more about their love for mankind than it will their love for the environment.
Wouldn't that be a false dilemma? Personally, I'd like to see us work to a solid compromise that involved moving to greener technologies (pebble bed or those other types of nuclear plants that use 80% of the fuel) as an interim step to more sustainable technologies. Should help reduce emissions drastically as it could make electric cars for urban use much more practical than they are now. Also, it helps in reducing our dependance on foreign oil at a time when the effects might not be as drastic.
From there, focus on more recycling programs and renewable resources (using bamboo instead of wood, things like that), promoting reuse instead of new purchases, etc. Doing it on a scaling ladder would help mitigate the impact on the economy.
And yes, keep up the foreign aid as appropriate. But focus it on countries that are helping themselves to get better and play nicely with others.
Posted by: ron on February 5, 2007 11:52 AMNot really a false dilemma, at least IMO. The recommendations that seem to be taken seriously by the greens (Kyoto is just the start) would be so expensive we wouldn't be able to afford much else. They also (apparently) wouldn't work in the end.
The comparison with the cost of what it would take to supply clean drinking water to the whole world is telling and more than a little tragic.
Well, you're assuming the point is to improve the lot of the downtrodden, rather that to redistribute wealth from US taxpayers to third-world Socialist dictators.