(August 22, 2019 at 4:54 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Let's just assume for a minute that there is no climate change. (I don't buy that - stasis is innherently unnatural. Change is a universal constant)
Would it hurt to use less?
Maybe leave a little for future generations?
I don't have kids - so it doesn' t affect me directly.
But - I really don't want future generations seeing us as a bunch of gluttonous fucks.
Those SUV's are monuments to greedheaded bastards.
The scale and cost of the intervention needs to take into account the weight of the evidence. Some plans like Bernie Sanders's come in at costs that would require us to really believe the end of the world is nigh.
And political policy meant to advance the cause of fighting global warming has not had a good history. Corn ethanol policy is an example where the claimed environmental benefits are of dubious value, not the least of which being that farming and ethanol production and distribution is very carbon energy intensive. An awful lot of environmental damage happens in the course of making the batteries for hybrid and electric cars which receive their charges from an electric grid powered by fossil fuels.
If global warming alarmists were serious, they would be pushing a lot more nuclear energy--something I favor--to ensure a reliable base load of power generation. Wind and solar on their own are just not reliable enough, but they are a useful supplement. If the salvation of mankind is literally in the balance, we have a solution already at hand. But no, we cannot invest in nuclear power, instead we have to reinvent the economy in order to "save the environment".
