For the non-believers in global warming,?

Question

whats the harm in supporting the efforts to stop pumping pollution into the air and earth even if global warming is not true?

a_man_could and others when has advanceing something ever had a negative effect on us economically. When the environmental laws came into effect thousands of jobs were created to meet these new laws. Saying this could negativly effect us is like the old thinking that computers are going to take millions of jobs away when the opposite is true of what happened.

Answer 1

I believe it has been sufficiently proven that there is global warming. All the experts agree on that. Its the cause they don't agree on. It's never a bad idea to work towards a cleaner environment.

Answer 2

Certainly there is no harm in intelligent conservation, but realize that global warming has become a political issue...and where there are politics, there is also corruption, self-interest and a load of very real consenquences.

Domestically, when social issues become public policy issues new laws, ordinances and an entirely new bureaucracy must be created to administer and enforce them. This means bigger government, higher taxes, more regulations requiring more lawyers to interpret them....and no concrete means to measure effectiveness versus tax-dollars spent.

Globally, efforts like "Kyoto" could have lasting and devastating economic effects. Industry is the means by which nations secure their economic independence and stability. Placing restrictions on a nation's ability to develop industrially condemns it to be a "buyer" rather than a "producer."

Again, there is nothing wrong with thoughtful, fair efforts to control pollution. When politics gets involved, however, ask youself what type of "green" is the main motivation.

Answer 3

Now that is a good question and one not asked often enough. I am a firm non believer since the earth managed to shed off 5 ice ages without mans input. But I like clean air, and I like a clean environment (parks, water, etc etc). That does not mean we kill our industries and return to mid evil standards - which by the way had some pretty crummy periods of pollution.

What is interesting is how industry responds to problems - look at Honda and Toyotal today producing "super ultra low emission vehicles." Did you know that it takes 75 Honda Accords to produce the same emissions as 1 - 1975 VW Bettle right now....industry will fix problems if we give them the incentives to do it.

The problem with environmentalist is they are really anti capitalist; and they are lawyers. The later does not care about the environment they care about the payoff to their "organization." The former does not care about SULEV cars they hate all cars. They have ruined any credibility they have and that is why people do not vote for elected leaders on environmental issues.

Answer 4

It is a matter of how drastically we should be willing to impact the economy. If we were all going to be wiped out in 10 years by hurricanes and floods, that would support pretty drastic action, gross job loss, etc. Otherwise, not so much.

I am totally in favor of cleaning up the planet, and I think we need alternate fuel ASAP. However, while the planet is clearly warming, I have seen no evidence that it is actually caused by fossil fuel use. The earth has warmed and cooled over and over, hence the ice ages and the evidence of primeval tropical climate in Antarctica. I'm open to another explanation with proof, but I've spent about 10 hours actually trying to find some, and wasn't able to.

Answer 5

Well, what do you mean by 'non-believer'? If you mean people who understand the climatological events of the past 100 years but don't see the evidence supporting the Al Gore Chicken-Little Sky-is-falling scenario, then, yes I'm a non-believer.

I agree with reducing pollution. Pollution means waste product - a manufacturing inefficiency. But it must be a rational reduction, not an economy-killer like Kyoto, or the kind of foolishness that has harmed our energy production capability.

But what methodology do we use? If you suggest the fatally flawed Kyoto, then no thanks. There was a reason the Senate rejected it 98-0 all those years ago.

Answer 6

I believe the globe warms and cools at a rate that is unaffected by our (human) input. There is no evidence that we contribute to global warming. I am not going to hitch a ride with some smelly guy I work with just to cut down on fuel consumption and pollution added to the air. I've said it before and I'll say it again. It takes a huge ego to think we (humans) can destroy something as great as the earth. If we shot off every nuclear bomb in existence we would still not be able to destroy the earth.

There is nothing wrong with reducing smog in smog prone areas, nothing wrong with making sure the rivers and lakes are clean enough to fish and swim in, nothing wrong with campaigns to educate people about the effects of litter and dumping chemicals into the ground. I am in favor of all these things. But to capitalize on the fear of those who are gullible on this issue is ridiculous. Gore and the rest of the movement are making money off of people who are just looking to support a good cause.
Try a new cause with benefits, like educating people on the harmful affects of Crystal Meth and cracking down on those who destroy their children's lives by producing it and smoking it. Thousands of kids each year are put into foster homes due to drugs. Kids are far more vulnerable than the planet on which we live. Educate yourself then educate kids and parents.

Answer 7

I will support that. I do not believe in global warming but I do think we can cut back on pollution. I just think it is wrong to create a situation to scare people into conserving. But you make a good point.

Answer 8

Very good question. Anyone who lives in an urban area knows that air quality is a huge problem regardless of their feelings towards the cause of global warming. Additionally, if we lowered the demand side of oil consumption, prices would go down. It's a win/win situation.

Answer 9

Because the societal costs are greater than the societal benefits.

Answer 10

None, some people just like to complain.