emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
- Thread starter
- #41
Because there are folks who will listen to energy companies and not scientists. Those folks, who remain suspicious of science will contend that carbon, in and of itself, is natural. They will talk about cow farts and volcanoes and other sources of greenhouse gases and exclaim "Look! The Liberals want to take over our very way of life!"No, not really. It's like saying you're fine with sprinkler systems in all buildings, but you don't want to legislate the storage of gasoline inside them.It's the old argument of Conservationism vs. Environmentalism. I believe far more in conservation than environmentalism, but the same people oppose both. The 2 have many of the same goals, and republicans will oppose both equally. Ask a republican about drilling in ANWR. Or about stopping plastic use.
Hi TheOldSchool, why add another layer like Global Warming to argue about?
If it's that hard just to resolve issues of pollution and waste, in themselves, why not address that first?
Why pick a new fight to fight ON TOP of the CORE issues going on. Do you see what I'm asking, and why?
Once we reduce the introduction of carbon into the atmosphere, a lot of other environmental problems can be easily solved.
But that does not preclude reduction of waste and hazardous or toxic emissions from farms and factories.
Hi Nosmo King
Why can't reduction of carbons be argued in terms of reducing pollution and imbalance/destruction of natural air quality in GENERAL?
Why can't reduction of waste, hazardous, toxic or UNNATURAL emissions be addressed per se?
As unnatural and not sustainable?
Where does this "absolutely depend" on arguments about Global Warming?
Thanks for being the only person attempting to address the issue.
Can you please explain why it isn't enough to agree that it is unnatural, unsustainable, harmful and unhealthy to release unnatural substances in collective quantities when this can be REDUCED and/or eliminated so it is as close to natural as possible.
Thanks!
Well, that is a political response, not a scientific one. Those science skeptics will find some e-mails or some conference on Global Warming and pick apart scientific findings with no real scientific knowledge just to bolster the position told to them by pundits who are in the employ of energy companies.
In other words, once a position has been staked out in the political arena, any and all science will not move them to knowledge due to their intrinsic fear of science..
Hi Nosmo King
Can't the science be used for solutions?
And not focus on trying to prove "one group right or wrong" about "Global Warming"
Any large collective emission that isn't naturally occurring isn't going to be naturally compensated for.
Mother Nature doesn't naturally produce more plants and technology to counteract that
at the level it is produced unnaturally. That doesn't take a bunch of scientific experts to prove.
I can explain that and discuss with Conservative friends just using Common Sense!
In order to address the SYSTEMIC attitude change,
to speak with Conservatives I would go with aligning with their existing values
such as "respect for God's creation" and for sustainable cost-effective business practices.
So if they want business people to make decisions for themselves, without political conflicts over regulations,
why not focus on better technical solutions instead of arguing about GW if they don't relate to that?
Thanks NK
You've given me a good idea of presenting this to the Humanists Ideas group and religion/ethics forum in Houston.
The idea of agreeing not to push the God/creation issue if this is not critical to prove,
and likewise not to push the GW issue if this is not critical to prove or believe,
but to agree to work on the real issues and common solutions regardless of people's beliefs.
And let those resolve themselves in the process of seeking common sense solutions all sides agree on anyway.