Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Naw, having an opportunity to benefit others and refusing is amoral. This entire discussion is possible due to fossil fuels. Had we not utilized them, most of us wouldn't even be alive for starters, and those that were would be outside plowing fields with oxen only to die at 40 or sooner.
How many of us on here are over 40? We're all dead without fossil fuels. Everyone else has a foot in the grave.
There is a moral case for fossil fuels, and that shouldn't even have to be stated given the exceedingly apparent examples of it absolutely everywhere we look.
Since there's a moral case for utilizing fossil fuels, there's a moral case for utilizing it wisely, which entails using it efficiently. The idea being to maximize the good that it does and extend out the timeframe we have to leverage such a gift.
|
So we're not going to hold to the 3-C target by 2100.They're talking 3.6-C now.We keep adding carbon dioxide.We're doing nothing to remove what's already in the atmosphere.And it's moral to add more,and criticize alternatives as if they were Satan's spawn.We grow the population more for more extinction later? It's a fascinating calculus.