Think of it this way...
by jamie
Personally, I've spent hours and hours looking for evidence that proves GW exists. It's existence would make me feel better - because the ££££ I pay in green taxes would at least be for agood cause.... But forget for a moment which side of the argument you're on.... just suppose we do all the things 'we need to do' to save the planet - It's clear, we will have to spend shed loads of money and face hardship even in our developed countries (which I assume we're all in cos we're on the net) --AND -- we're gonna have to stop poor nations using fossil fuels, so they will stay poor - and won't be able to but medical stuff etc. so people will die... PLUS we'll be using our farmland to grow fuel and won't be able to sell them food at reasonable prices. so millions of people will die. but we've saved the planet... OR..... We spend the money, all of the above will happen, and we'll still have GW.... In the second scenario, we try to reasonaby curb CO2, without crippling ourselves. Then what happens is.... If GW is real, we have to move some of our cities from food areas - we'll lose some beautiful places, we'll all be a bit sad at the losses but we'll still have food.... and money - and spare land to grow food to give to poorer nations (although they might be better off by then) - sure, a few people will die.... but not that many... If GW is imaginary (big tick) Al Gore gets poor, we are all happy, less hungry people, less dead people.... So... spend all our rescoures on GW causes and KILL MILLIONS OF POOR PEOPLE - with uncertain climate out come... or Prepare and react - (maybe say goodbye to london etc.) and SAVE MILLIONS OF LIVES... Though choice I know...
Are you sure you want to report this comment as offensive?
by jamie
Personally, I've spent hours and hours looking for evidence that proves GW exists. It's existence would make me feel better - because the ££££ I pay in green taxes would at least be for agood cause.... But forget for a moment which side of the argument you're on.... just suppose we do all the things 'we need to do' to save the planet - It's clear, we will have to spend shed loads of money and face hardship even in our developed countries (which I assume we're all in cos we're on the net) --AND -- we're gonna have to stop poor nations using fossil fuels, so they will stay poor - and won't be able to but medical stuff etc. so people will die... PLUS we'll be using our farmland to grow fuel and won't be able to sell them food at reasonable prices. so millions of people will die. but we've saved the planet... OR..... We spend the money, all of the above will happen, and we'll still have GW.... In the second scenario, we try to reasonaby curb CO2, without crippling ourselves. Then what happens is.... If GW is real, we have to move some of our cities from food areas - we'll lose some beautiful places, we'll all be a bit sad at the losses but we'll still have food.... and money - and spare land to grow food to give to poorer nations (although they might be better off by then) - sure, a few people will die.... but not that many... If GW is imaginary (big tick) Al Gore gets poor, we are all happy, less hungry people, less dead people.... So... spend all our rescoures on GW causes and KILL MILLIONS OF POOR PEOPLE - with uncertain climate out come... or Prepare and react - (maybe say goodbye to london etc.) and SAVE MILLIONS OF LIVES... Though choice I know...
Are you sure you want to report this comment as offensive?
