Good reasoning. Where uncertainty about whether or not global warming is occurring is high, it is a good idea to undertake a risk analysis of action v. inaction. It's like choosing to run out of the building or not when you hear a fire alarm go off at 2am. You might not know if it's a true emergency, but basically, it's better to be safe than sorry.
It makes sense, right? I think so. I know some people who say that global warming isn't happening. I don't know, really, but it does make sense. Better safe than sorry. Isn't that what we teach our kids? I mean, it's much easier to argue for raising taxes to save the environment than to raise taxes to fund a war, no matter what the war is.
Inscription à :
Publier les commentaires (Atom)
1 commentaire:
Call it the "War on Global Climate Change" or the "War on the Human Contribution to Global Climate Change" and The People™ will lap it right up. Right up there with the GWOT (Global War on Terror) and the War on Drugs.
*sigh* I am jaded enough to see those who oppose spending money to regulate things (like how much pollution our vehicles put out) using this "War On ___" to say "well the War On Drugs isn't working, and the War On Terror is a joke, so now with the new War On Warming, we're just throwing more money for useless things!"
I hate politics.
Enregistrer un commentaire