Just a little indulgence here, since I've noticed quite a few fundamentalists/creationists/ dare-I-say-conservatives, seem to believe global warming is a myth created by the left wing, bleeding heart scientists.
Wouldn't it be safer to allow for the POSSIBILITY that global warming is real, start to shift away from burning fossil fuels, invest in "green" technology, and try to reduce CO2, than to RISK the possibility of tipping a scale we won't be able to reverse - a 40' rise in sea levels, the destruction of marine ecosystems, possibly even human life?
What do we have to lose by learning to live environmentally neutral?
2007-04-24 14:55:54 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I'm all for renewable energy and reducing emissions and so on. But I would be for those things whether or not everyone was going to drown in a hundred years or whatever.
2007-04-24 15:00:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Has all people right here been following the efforts of China to freshen up the air in Beijing? the clarification I ask is because of fact the smog there is in many situations so thick that folk who stay there virtually never see the solar. The athletes competing there are apprehensive correct to the destructive consequence the pollution might have on their overall performance.Beijing is city with a inhabitants of 60 million human beings and over 3 million vehicles and infinite factories. they have close down all the factories for the era of the Olympics and stopped ninety% of the vehicles from being on the line,and nonetheless the skies are full of smog. the comparable pollution that motives smog kills a minimum of two million human beings a 365 days from larger respiration illnesses,reason adequate to cut back emissions of CO2. the comparable factor that motives international warming kills human beings. what's complicated to comprehend approximately that? that's not a advertising and marketing approach as somebody thinks it incredibly is quite genuine. If for no different reason we'd desire to cut back the emissions of greenhouse gases for wellbeing applications. you're actually not gaining something via denying that that's happening and it will basically worsen. very final element i think it incredibly is naive to think of that the flaws we do could have a destructive consequence interior the international. we are able to basically cut back down quite some rainforests to make room for greater farm animals so which you will get low priced burgers from McDonald's earlier something provides.
2016-10-30 05:36:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are You An Alien Like Me
2007-04-25 18:27:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I kinda want to see if the apocalyptic predictions hold up in 40 years.
2007-04-24 14:58:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
FAIR POINT.
Personally I don't disregard global warming...it seems quite possible. Time will tell.
2007-04-24 15:01:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You expect the Christian soccer moms to stop driving their huge SUVs? Hmmm...
(sorry, had to)
2007-04-24 15:03:13 · answer #6 · answered by I'm Still Here 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Avatar's cool
2007-04-24 15:06:00 · answer #7 · answered by Falcon Feather 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
oh burn on christens...oh no really he's right we should slow down the use of fossil fuels
2007-04-24 15:00:34 · answer #8 · answered by cthulhu will raise 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Profits would decline.
2007-04-24 15:00:01 · answer #9 · answered by S K 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
we drink toxic sludge?
2007-04-24 15:05:22 · answer #10 · answered by answer faerie, V.T., A. M. 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋