Quote:
Originally Posted by Si modo
When someone in the world comes up with a plan to cut the rate without crippling their economy any more or other possible ramifications, then I will listen to it.
|
It's been proposed. Massive improvements in efficiency, and a switch from fossil fuels to either renewable energy or nuclear for electricity production, would help rather than hurting the economy (although it would require some up-front capital investment) and would cut greenhouse emissions. Ultimately, a switch to a solar-powered, hydrogen-mediated energy economy with high efficiency would reduce net greenhouse emissions to almost nil, without hurting the economy at all (indeed, it would help it).
Quote:
|
In the mean time, the US fattie is doing a better job at it. Calling the numbers dishonest does not make them dishonest.
|
I explained why they were dishonest, and why they do not indicate that the U.S. is doing a better job. Do you have an answer to that argument?
Quote:
|
Thanks for the link. It's dated 2002, as is the official announcement of policy. Volker spoke in 2007. Does that mean someone is necessarily lying? No. It would be scarier if one's views were so dug in that they refuse to learn something new in an ever-moving area of the sciences. That may be a better explanation than the necessary lie.
|
Well, indeed I'm making an assumption here that Bush was not displaying intellectual integrity in his original position, that we don't know what he actually thinks about the science involved, and that everything he's done has been done to protect the fossil-fuel industry which is a major part of his constituency. That the fossil-fuel industry IS a major part of his constituency requires no assumption; that's obvious; and it is I think a reasonable assumption that when something he does serves to protect or enhance the profits of that industry, that is why he does it. Without being able to read his mind, and absent any tangible hard evidence like internal White House memoranda leaks, it's not possible to prove that, but the assumption follows naturally from the observation that he's a politician.
A serious response to global warming need not hurt the economy, but it certainly will hurt the profits of the fossil-fuel industry. Thus, a politician serving the interests of that industry must delay that response as long as possible. Stating that there was not enough scientific evidence to justify such action, as Bush did in 2002, is one way to do that. When it is no longer possible to make that claim, the song and dance performed in 2007 provides another way.