Quote:
Originally Posted by Occasionally6
That one is easy...
|
I don't agree with the attribution but lets work this through in terms of response.
The runoff from farms can be solved - different chemicals and fertilizers can be developed and used, the waste can be caught and run off prevented. The cost of doing that, even on a major scale can be estimated and implemented. IMHO if that is causing damage then it should be done, and the
polluters made to pay, and ultimately the
consumers of their products via the prices they charge.
Is it possible to work out a GW/CO2 response which would work as well ? And if so how much would it cost, who would implement it and when ?
Take another example, you want to protect wildlife ? Me too. Habitats are under threat. Why ? Because people on the "edge" will start to exploit those areas for a living. Give those people an alternative, like a factory or an office, or a skill, or a trade - and they will leave those areas alone.
And despite what you might think about quality of life and living out of town, those in the developing world just want what we have - good pay, good healthcare and a future for their kids. They don't debate whether GM food is good or not, they just want food and clean water.
Solving that one globally is about 1/52nd the estimated cost of solving "climate change" even if it was possible.
And if we solve it then we also solve the growth in global population - did you notice the rate of increase has slowed ?