Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
So the key to stemming global warming is to measure with Mercury thermometers. :P
I'm pretty well convinced burning fossil fuels is most responsible for the increased CO2 levels. As I've said before, it doesn't matter the cause though, as what to do about something has little to nothing to do with cause, and more to do with what will happen if you don't respond to the threat. In other words, if solar irregularity were causing the majority of warming and it posed enough of a threat, we should be responding to that threat just as much as if any other thing were causing warming. If long-term well-being depends on the average temperature being within a certain range, we need to respond reasonably to keep it within that range. Cause is meaningless insofar as if we should act.
If a tree is falling in your direction, the cause is irrelevant. The only relevant consideration is what direction and what speed is an appropriate response. In my view, this is the relevant and interesting discussion. Cause doesn't matter. What can be done and what SHOULD be done in response to change?
|
Some have advanced ideas about the can and should.What appears to be the issue,is the implications of following a correcting course of action.Our economy has been predicated on expansion of markets,expansion of consumption,expansion of credit,slow,incremental change,so as not to frighten Wall St..It's only very recently that the spectre of themes like deconstruction,and contraction has reared its ugly head.The Business Round Table wants to do something,and by showing a united front,no single entity can be singled out as a ne'er-do-well.It's a beginning at the CEO level.
I'd like to drive to Hawaii one day in a long-range EV.We'll need a lot more plastic in the Pacific in order for that to happen.So we need to stop burning fuel so much and turn it into durable highway materials.Drill baby drill,without the burn-baby-burn!
