AnimusRex
Posts: 2165
Joined: 5/13/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth I know of no disbeliever, or heretics as they are called, who says that conservation and/or inhibiting pollution is bad. Were their a pragmatic approach being suggested for the transition, one that truly takes on equal, global, application of pragmatically 'good' conservation ideas - I'd be a 'convert'. It's a position of exclusivity to any other option, or opinion, where they loss me and many others who don't see a unilateral abdication of western industry while at the same time not inhibiting the pollution generated from other countries, as anything other than agenda serving. What I am doing here is trying to find areas where reasonable people can agree. I believe this is one. If the only voices being heard are Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh, the areas for agreement are pretty small. But there are others- I referenced once before the book The Natural Step; the premise of the book is that the modern industrial processes of extracting, refining, using and disposing of natural resources is not just unsustainable to the natural world- but that it is actually poisoning and destroying our world, that it is a threat to us, not just polar bears. It makes the point that the very same creativity and energy that powers the capitalist economies can be used to design processes that are efficient, and sustainable. It only requires that we look at the long term, instead of the short term, and that we look at the overall life cycle of things, not just the immediate use. Are there fatuous gasbags within the global warming circles? Well they are politicians, what did you expect? But laughing at Al Gore, or mocking climate scientists who rigged their studies, doesn't address the underlying issue- that we do have a problem, and we need to find solutions.
|