|
|
 Originally Posted by mcatdog
I don't think many serious people deny that human-caused climate change exists (although the theory that a relatively small increase will bring about Armageddon due to feedback loops is far less of a scientific consensus). It's just a question of how much should be done about it, and whether the massive resources it would take to significantly reduce our carbon footprint, would be better spent feeding the world's 3 billion poorest people and improving economic conditions to help them escape from poverty.
It's a fair suggestion but if the 3 billion poorest people become more affluent, isn't that just going to lead to an increased demand for goods that will both consume our resources quicker and lead to increases in atmospheric CO2?
Reducing our carbon footprint now also would require vast amounts of resources initially but it's an investment with hopefully a greater return in the short term than trying to vitalize some immmature economies.
|
Reply With Quote