2007-09-24 02:12:03 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I just CANT seem to find out this answer. Who or WHAT was responsible. Surely it was Global Warming back then too right?
2007-09-24 02:12:49 · update #1
The implication of your question is that global warming will happen regardless of what humans do or do not do. If that is the case, if there are things that humans do that increase the rate of global warming, shouldn't we make some effort to understand those causes and minimize them?
I don't believe that most individuals who warn of global warming are saying that corporations are evil. What they are saying is that market forces are not the most efficient means of dealing with issues like pollution. Market players that can pollute more incur fewer costs and can sell for less. This gives them an advantage in the marketplace which should be equalized. This can be done in several ways. Educating consumers as to the true cost of products-including environmental costs is one such way. Whether that goes far enough or not is a political question on which people differ greatly. It is clear, however, that countries that do not force their corporations to act responsibly with regard to environmental (Mexico, China . . . ) issues have a distinct advantage in the world market.
Even if we could reduce or slow global warming slightly through human action, wouldn't that be the right thing to do?
Even assuming that there is no global warming, shouldn't we try to reduce pollution purely to have cleaner air and water?
2007-09-24 02:30:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Politics has no place in agreeing or disagreeing with scientific consensus. But when it comes to climate change, evolution, and stem cell research, its all about the politics, not the science.
I will side with science, not politics, for the best course of action based on our best knowledge and understanding of a situation.
It is undisputed that human activity is pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere than at any time in the last several million years (yes they do know how much CO2 was in the atmosphere for the last several million years)
It is undisputed that CO2 is a green house gas and acts to trap radiant heat in the atmosphere.
It is undisputed that the earth is warming and Glacier and polar ice is melting.
The preponderance of the evidence suggests that we, humans, are warming the planet with our industrial activity.
The preponderance of the evidence suggests this is more bad than good. Higher temps mean higher sea levels. The fast majority of the people live close to the sea in low lying areas.
It is undisputed that we can curb these carbon emmissions.
It is undisputed that the best way to do that is to use less fossil fuel. Conserving expensive fossil fuel and developing more efficient lower carbon energy sources benefits everyone except the fossil fuel industry.
The preponderance of the evidence suggests that if we reduce or eliminate CO2 then the warming rate will slow, stop or possibly reverse. The preponderance of the evidence suggest that is more good than bad.
2007-09-24 09:46:11 · answer #2 · answered by jehen 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The second Ice Age film was not nearly as good as the first. Conservatives aren't responsible for that, but Hollywood!
2007-09-24 09:19:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well supposedly we were, according to the great almighty scientist of the 70's, going to be in an ice age now so let's see... it must have been Johnson and Johnson or McDonald's back then or the evil military causing the problems.
2007-09-24 09:31:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Don't know but they'll be behind the coming super heat wave.
2007-09-24 09:56:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'm assuming it was Bush.
2007-09-24 09:42:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well DUH!! It was Haliburton, of course. They are at fault for everything, including the death of Bambi's mother.
2007-09-24 09:23:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋