C
chain
Guest
Climate change is the WMD’s of the environmental movement.
- Status
4
4elise
Guest
- meaning?
C
chain
Guest
It means while we have tons of evidence of things we have done bad to the environment, none of those seems to have been an adequate call to action. Personally I see the “climate change” as a created problem (with about as much hard evidence as those mobile chemical factors) designed to get a desired reaction.
Furthermore, I see tons economic motivators around it - which are going to cause changes that have nothing to do with environment (more push for smaller families via birth control and abortion) - and a push to market green products, which if you look at the embodied energy of what they are replacing are not really very green - just sales driven.
Furthermore, I see tons economic motivators around it - which are going to cause changes that have nothing to do with environment (more push for smaller families via birth control and abortion) - and a push to market green products, which if you look at the embodied energy of what they are replacing are not really very green - just sales driven.
C
Calliso
Guest
To those that would say there is little evidence. I have to wonder how much actual looking into the subject have you done?
M
mapleoak
Guest
An interesting example(s) of coerced taxpayer funding for global warming initiatives is contained within the attached article:
eastsiderailnow.org/eastside_rail_global_warming.html
Money which (should be left in taxpayer pockets) could be better spent on programs providing education in trades and skilled labor, thereby directly effecting the lives of the poor by opening up job opportunities for them.
Another example is farm subsidies to grow crops for fuel as opposed to crops for food and feed. Government subsidies have a way of stifling the production of resources at a fair, cheap, and market driven cost (cheap market driven costs benefit the poor) through the implementation of artificial demand. Cost of food then becomes much higher. In other words, farmers grow what the government pays them to grow rather than what the market demands. This means market demand becomes higher, supply becomes scantier, hence the poor cannot afford to eat.
That is a double doozey, since the government could spend the money (which it shouldn’t have in the first place) on programs providing education same as above. At the same time making the poor have to pay high prices to fill their plate. All under the deceptive guise of concern for the earth’s changing climate (now being purported as an inconclusive attempt at indirectly helping the poor in some manner).
4
4elise
Guest
I think that your first point of leaving money in taxpayers pockets doesn’t necessarily translate to helping the poor - but I do see your point about education in trades etc. dailyrecord.com/article/20090527/BUSINESS/905270361/1003/+500M+directed+to+fund+green+job+training - part of this Green move is actually job training - and providing jobs that will be sustainable in the future.
I think Government farm subsidies need to really be examined - I completely agree with you on this - crops that are food need to be food! The subsidies for ethenol had a HUGE impact globally!
Farm subsidies have been packaged as many things, and just recently given this new label - I always get frustrated when it is packaged to appear that it is for the family farmer when in fact it helps the profits of giant agribusinesses.
However - I do believe the science (I know you have objections to that) that points to the human contribution to climate change and believe we can and should make changes keeping all this in perspective - and always being cautions not to do this on the backs of the poor.
- Status