Do you believe in global warming?

[Monte_RCMS]

nukepowertalk.blogspot.com/2013/04/renewable-energy-and-reality.html

renewable-energy-and-reality.html

excerpt:

*Zehner goes on to say that every energy generation method has side effects and limitations. He mentions several, but I will highlight one:

Finally, we have to consider the mining, health, pollution and waste problems of renewable technologies. For example, we are now learning that the solar cell industry is one of the fastest growing emitters of virulent greenhouse gases such as sulfur hexafluoride, which has a global warming potential 23,000 times higher than CO2, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). *

 

[TheRealJuliane]

AGREED!!!

Or maybe we can learn something about how NOT to interact with loved ones

Yes, like calling them names such as “denialist,” eh?

 

[lynnvinc]

Yes, like calling them names such as “denialist,” eh?

Well, one has to distinguish between those who are not familiar with the science who have doubts, but would be convinced if they saw and understood the science, or if further convincing evidence/theories were developed. Those are “skeptics.”

Those who are completely zonked into the fake-science perpetrated by the fossil-fuel-funded climate change denialist industry (which KNOWS it is producing fake-science), and refuse even to consider the real climate scientists and their studies MIGHT be right – rejecting their studies out of hand. They are “denialists.” No amount of further evidence or theories will sway them to the contrary.

I’m not really sure about the various people here at CAF. I suspect there may be some denialists, but I do not directly call anyone here a denialist, bec I really do not know whether they are skeptics or denialists. I hope they are simply skeptics, otherwise I would not bother countering their arguments. And hope springs eternal.

Now what does this have to do with the OP who is trying to figure out what to do in a situation in which his/her person of romantic interested disagrees about AGW? Well, this is an important distinction. If the person is a denialist, and the OP is able to figure that out, it would be best not to continue the relationship IF he/she considers AGW an issue worth discussing and even arguing over. It would be pointless and put undue stress on the marriage.

IF OTOH the person is a skeptic, then it is just a matter of time (as my husband keeps telling me) before the person, along with all the skeptics here at CAF, becomes convinced of AGW.

OR, best of all worlds – the OP convinces the spouse re AGW, they mitigate AGW, save lots of money which they use for their family life (save for kids college, etc), and come to find out a decade or two from now the scientists were wrong and there’s no AGW to worry about. They’d feel good about having mitigated a host of other problems AND having saved money. And they’d be very thankful that they considered AGW a serious problem to mitigate, which put them on a prudent, money-saving path. No harm done, and much good done. And they live happily every after.

 

[EasterJoy]

This sort of brings me to a related question for the posters here. Who is married to or in a romantic relationship with someone who agrees with them about AGW? And who is married to or in a romantic relationship with someone who disagrees with them about AGW? I’m thinking right now this may not be a huge issue or source of stress, but will be more and more so into the future.

James Carville is happily married to Mary Matalin…they don’t talk politics at home. I know a couple married 60 years who are also very much on opposite ends of the political spectrum; they wouldn’t dream of marrying someone who would let someone else tell them how to think. When it comes to whether or not they’re going to recycle, for instance, well, sometimes they agree and sometimes they don’t, but they figure something out. Maybe not in total serenity, but they figure something out.

Other people cannot stand the idea of sharing an address with someone who isn’t in agreement with them about the majority of things. They choose someone who thinks very much like they do, and that can work, too.

In the majority of happily married couples are those who marry someone who agrees with them about the things that they feel are important to agree about. That’s usually not everything, but it is the big stuff–and what “big stuff” is depends on the person. For instance, maybe one believes in global warming and the other doesn’t, but neither one can stand waste or else neither of them thinks that the things that make the two of them happy constitute waste. It isn’t so much about being right as it is about being in sufficient agreement to still respect each other.

Know yourself. That is the person who has to be satisfied about whether you can live with someone who disagrees with you about global warming, or anything else.

 

[EasterJoy]

Well, one has to distinguish between those who are not familiar with the science who have doubts, but would be convinced if they saw and understood the science, or if further convincing evidence/theories were developed. Those are “skeptics.”

Those who are completely zonked into the fake-science perpetrated by the fossil-fuel-funded climate change denialist industry (which KNOWS it is producing fake-science), and refuse even to consider the real climate scientists and their studies MIGHT be right – rejecting their studies out of hand. They are “denialists.” No amount of further evidence or theories will sway them to the contrary.

I’m not really sure about the various people here at CAF. I suspect there may be some denialists, but I do not directly call anyone here a denialist, bec I really do not know whether they are skeptics or denialists. I hope they are simply skeptics, otherwise I would not bother countering their arguments. And hope springs eternal.

Now what does this have to do with the OP who is trying to figure out what to do in a situation in which his/her person of romantic interested disagrees about AGW? Well, this is an important distinction. If the person is a denialist, and the OP is able to figure that out, it would be best not to continue the relationship IF he/she considers AGW an issue worth discussing and even arguing over. It would be pointless and put undue stress on the marriage.

IF OTOH the person is a skeptic, then it is just a matter of time (as my husband keeps telling me) before the person, along with all the skeptics here at CAF, becomes convinced of AGW.

OR, best of all worlds – the OP convinces the spouse re AGW, they mitigate AGW, save lots of money which they use for their family life (save for kids college, etc), and come to find out a decade or two from now the scientists were wrong and there’s no AGW to worry about. They’d feel good about having mitigated a host of other problems AND having saved money. And they’d be very thankful that they considered AGW a serious problem to mitigate, which put them on a prudent, money-saving path. No harm done, and much good done. And they live happily every after.

You forget a third group: The True Believers, whose thought process is the same as denialists, but instead of denying global warming, they believe it without having done any work to examine the evidence.

There is also a fourth group: those who are willing to make certain decisions based on the science that is known, but who also realize that the picture is still emerging, that the true picture always has wrinkles that will surprise–that is, things could be better than thought, worse than thought, or simply different in some unforeseen ways. I guess I’d call them scientific pragmatists. That describes an awful lot of people who understand the picture as it is known.

The story of how Earth’s climate works is still being discovered, even though the amount learned in the last 60 years is nothing short of astonishing compared to the amount that had been learned in the centuries before that. We know so much more than we did, but there will be surprises. We have jumped to some conclusions, because we had to make decisions in real time. Let’s hope most of the coming surprises will be pleasant ones, but let’s bet that the truth will go both ways, both better and worse than we thought.

With regards to this thread, though, the main thing that is important is what each spouse thinks of the various ways to respond to what can be known about these topics. Mutual respect and tolerance is needed, so look for someone whose thinking can either evolve or else fail to evolve without losing your respect.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Well, one has to distinguish between those who are not familiar with the science who have doubts, but would be convinced if they saw and understood the science, or if further convincing evidence/theories were developed. Those are “skeptics.”

Those who are completely zonked into the fake-science perpetrated by the fossil-fuel-funded climate change denialist industry (which KNOWS it is producing fake-science), and refuse even to consider the real climate scientists and their studies MIGHT be right – rejecting their studies out of hand. They are “denialists.” No amount of further evidence or theories will sway them to the contrary.

I’m not really sure about the various people here at CAF. I suspect there may be some denialists, but I do not directly call anyone here a denialist, bec I really do not know whether they are skeptics or denialists. I hope they are simply skeptics, otherwise I would not bother countering their arguments. And hope springs eternal.

Now what does this have to do with the OP who is trying to figure out what to do in a situation in which his/her person of romantic interested disagrees about AGW? Well, this is an important distinction. If the person is a denialist, and the OP is able to figure that out, it would be best not to continue the relationship IF he/she considers AGW an issue worth discussing and even arguing over. It would be pointless and put undue stress on the marriage.

IF OTOH the person is a skeptic, then it is just a matter of time (as my husband keeps telling me) before the person, along with all the skeptics here at CAF, becomes convinced of AGW.

OR, best of all worlds – the OP convinces the spouse re AGW, they mitigate AGW, save lots of money which they use for their family life (save for kids college, etc), and come to find out a decade or two from now the scientists were wrong and there’s no AGW to worry about. They’d feel good about having mitigated a host of other problems AND having saved money. And they’d be very thankful that they considered AGW a serious problem to mitigate, which put them on a prudent, money-saving path. No harm done, and much good done. And they live happily every after.

You absolutely refuse to admit that YOU might be wrong.

:banghead:

Your “denialist” category might actually know something you refuse to even consider. There’s something very obstinately wooden-headed about a person who cannot see that there is a possibility that she is mistaken. I guess when you called yourself an “apostle” of AGW, that told us all we need to know. Who is your God, after all, lynnvinc? This theory of AGW sure seems to hold a central place in your life.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

You probably know by now that I accept AGW science; I have made it my personal apostolate to inform people about it and about the Little Way of Environmental Healing to mitigate it thru prayer and small (some large) deeds offer in love to God. It’s been like banging my head against a brick wall for 23 years, but I’m offering it all to God, so I’m not counting it in terms of worldly success.

Maybe banging your head against a brick wall for 23 years might be giving you a very unnecessary headache?

What if you’re just wrong? Could you owe a lot of people an apology for being so condescendingly insulting? Could you ever admit that you might in fact, be wrong?

 

[EasterJoy]

You absolutely refuse to admit that YOU might be wrong.

:banghead:

Your “denialist” category might actually know something you refuse to even consider. There’s something very obstinately wooden-headed about a person who cannot see that there is a possibility that she is mistaken. I guess when you called yourself an “apostle” of AGW, that told us all we need to know. Who is your God, after all, lynnvinc? This theory of AGW sure seems to hold a central place in your life.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “mistaken”. If you mean these people who won’t admit that Mt. Hood used to have glaciers even in August that can clearly be seen in photograph after photograph after photograph and year after year after year, glaciers which are not remotely to be seen any more, then I don’t see a reason in the world to say, “Oh, well, maybe everyone who was there to see it is lying and the picture was taken from a funny angle and…” The topic of global warming is a big one, there is certainly room to argue cause and effect, but there are some things that are known.

But yes, there are “True Believers” who are so adamant that they have the story exactly right and in the bag right now that they won’t look at data that indicate anything less simple than they want to believe. But the world is full of those! If you bang your head against the wall every time someone is found to be carrying a pet theory that they can’t bear to part with, you’re going to give yourself chronic concussions!

 

[lynnvinc]

Maybe banging your head against a brick wall for 23 years might be giving you a very unnecessary headache?

What if you’re just wrong? Could you owe a lot of people an apology for being so condescendingly insulting? Could you ever admit that you might in fact, be wrong?

I’ve always said I could be wrong. Science is never 100% certain of anything. In fact I hope I am wrong. I’d be singing and dancing for joy if I, JPII, BXVI, the US Bishops and 1000s of climate scientists were wrong about AGW.

However, there is pretty good theory from over 100 years ago based on the laws of physics and evidence dating back millions of years re the natural greenhouse effect, and plenty of current evidence supporting AGW, so unless the global average temps go back down to pre-70s levels, and say low for several decades, I won’t be completely convinced I was wrong.

The main issue is what to do in the face of only 95% probability, or even only 15% or only 5% probability that AGW is real and poses grave threats to life. We do buy insurance for our homes with only slight probability that they will burn to a crisp, or be damaged in some other way.

As Christians we are called to prudence and not take dangerous risks with other people’s lives and property, and in the case of AGW, mitigate it even if we are not sure it is happening, even if we think there is only a very slight chance it is happening. At the very least to do those things that do not cost anything, or in fact save us money (money we can then use to pay our home insurance ). That’s all I’ve ever asked of anyone. My husband is not willing to sacrifice, having grown up in poverty with many foodless hungry days, so we are not sacrificing, and I wouldn’t ask anyone else to sacrifice.

Now it seems to me if those who accept AGW as real and dangerous think there is a chance they could be wrong, then skeptics should also be thinking they could be wrong, which should propel them to mitigate at least in “no regrets” ways.

I would hope that the skeptics here would at least agree to that. And if the OP’s love interest also agrees to that, then I think it’s fine to pursue the relationship.

And I am really sorry if I have been offensive to anyone…I tend to get over-zealous.

 

[EasterJoy]

Even if they were otherwise free to marry each other, I feel pretty sure that lynnvinc and TheRealJulianne would be better off not doing that. I don’t think they ought to sleep in the same house after they’ve been talking about global warming, let alone the same bedroom!

So, OP, maybe you ought to get your fiancé together with some friends of yours on either side of this debate, and after an evening you might have a pretty good idea if this is somebody whose opinions and way of expressing those opinions are things you can live with. Or maybe you can just ask him if he uses paper, plastic, or his own bags. A lot can be learned from that conversation!

 

[aspirant]

 

[Nandarani]

In the 1970’s a group called the Club of Rome met to decide what program to push to gain control over the largest number of people. Alien invasion was considered. Finally, the group ‘hit upon’ (their words) the idea of man-made global warming, or climate change.

We can now see that every spectacularly destructive weather event in this country, and many people do not suspect in other parts of the world, are designed to not only destroy the farmland in this country, but also to get people to believe that something needs to be done to change something assumed to be naturally a result of MAN’s FAULT, a great way to tie into the down with people, the world is over populated line of thought which is also being promoted.

Anyway: it’s tragic if people believe this and decide that the only way to prevent catastrophe (man-made, if people only knew on what our money is spent), they will decide that it is

OK TO PAY AL GORE MONEY and then EVERYTHING WILL BE SOLVED.
He has his own company waiting to receive the carbon credits.

The Australian prime minister is a tool of the control the world agenda, and like leaders everywhere today overrode her people’s strongly stated view and instituted carbon credits.

It will ruin the economy further if Puppet Obama does this here with an executive order.

 

[lynnvinc]

I guess when you called yourself an “apostle” of AGW, that told us all we need to know. Who is your God, after all, lynnvinc? This theory of AGW sure seems to hold a central place in your life.

Life issues such as AGW and abortion have always been very important to me, but spiritual issues are even more important, as is the condition of our beautiful Catholic Church, which is exposed in the daily actions and words of it members.

I would not want to be found rude or nasty, not only bec it would hurt others and be bad for my own soul, but it would reflect badly on the Catholic Church and on my OCDS order (Secular Discalced Carmelites – a 3rd order). I sincerely am sorry for insulting people here at CAF (you are quite right – I am arrogant and insulting) – which harms not only yourselves and me, but also my Church and OCDS order. :imsorry:

“Apostolate” sort of means “outreach.” So it has been my personal outreach to inform others about AGW within a Catholic and Carmelite approach to its solution.

I’ve developed a Little Way of Environmental Healing, based on St. Therese’s Little Way of Spiritual Childhood:

The Little Way of Environmental Healing

We are faced with enormous environmental problems that harm people, and destroy property and wildlife. Everyone needs to help solve these.

St. Therese of the Child Jesus teaches us the Little Way of Spiritual Childhood. She felt she could not perform the big mortifications of the saints. We also feel we cannot go back to a lifestyle without cars and modern conveniences.

St. Therese, though, was determined to become a saint. She read, “Whoever does not accept the kingdom of God as a little child will not enter into it.” Following this, St. Therese in childlike simplicity offered God all of her small deeds of ordinary life, and placed all her trust in God to help her scale the cliffs of perfection and avoid temptations. This is the Little Way. “Not everyone can fast, or wear hair shirts, or spend hours in prayer,” she used to say, “but everyone can love!” One thing alone is needful: all must be done for love of God.

What is needed to solve the big environmental problems is a life of many small deeds done out of love for God. We need to offer many small prayers to help us understand the problems and find solutions, and then more prayers to carry out our actions in daily life.

We need faith that our small deeds will, with God’s grace, amount to more than a meaningless drop in the bucket, letting Jesus multiply our fish & loaves; Mother Teresa said our love makes our small deeds infinite. We need hope that we will one day be rejoicing with God in heaven, so we need not be too concerned with worldly riches, comforts, and status. We need the charity of joyfully sharing God’s bounty and beauty with others around the world and in the future by helping to save the Earth.

 

[EasterJoy]

Life issues such as AGW and abortion have always been very important to me, but spiritual issues are even more important, as is the condition of our beautiful Catholic Church, which is exposed in the daily actions and words of it members.

I would not want to be found rude or nasty, not only bec it would hurt others and be bad for my own soul, but it would reflect badly on the Catholic Church and on my OCDS order (Secular Discalced Carmelites – a 3rd order). I sincerely am sorry for insulting people here at CAF (you are quite right – I am arrogant and insulting) – which harms not only yourselves and me, but also my Church and OCDS order. :imsorry:

“Apostolate” sort of means “outreach.” So it has been my personal outreach to inform others about AGW within a Catholic and Carmelite approach to its solution.

I’ve developed a Little Way of Environmental Healing, based on St. Therese’s Little Way of Spiritual Childhood:

The Little Way of Environmental Healing

We are faced with enormous environmental problems that harm people, and destroy property and wildlife. Everyone needs to help solve these.

St. Therese of the Child Jesus teaches us the Little Way of Spiritual Childhood. She felt she could not perform the big mortifications of the saints. We also feel we cannot go back to a lifestyle without cars and modern conveniences.

St. Therese, though, was determined to become a saint. She read, “Whoever does not accept the kingdom of God as a little child will not enter into it.” Following this, St. Therese in childlike simplicity offered God all of her small deeds of ordinary life, and placed all her trust in God to help her scale the cliffs of perfection and avoid temptations. This is the Little Way. “Not everyone can fast, or wear hair shirts, or spend hours in prayer,” she used to say, “but everyone can love!” One thing alone is needful: all must be done for love of God.

What is needed to solve the big environmental problems is a life of many small deeds done out of love for God. We need to offer many small prayers to help us understand the problems and find solutions, and then more prayers to carry out our actions in daily life.

We need faith that our small deeds will, with God’s grace, amount to more than a meaningless drop in the bucket, letting Jesus multiply our fish & loaves; Mother Teresa said our love makes our small deeds infinite. We need hope that we will one day be rejoicing with God in heaven, so we need not be too concerned with worldly riches, comforts, and status. We need the charity of joyfully sharing God’s bounty and beauty with others around the world and in the future by helping to save the Earth.

Just as you have issues that are very important to you, even though they are not the first thing you talk about, realize that not everyone who questions whether rising temperatures in various parts of the world have a human source is looking for carte blanche to trash all outdoors. Most are not, and many are as fond of nature as anyone else, if not more so. Many are frugal in their personal habits, too, just not because they think it keeps the global temperature down. Rather, these particular many do not want to take actions which will certainly have drastic economic consequences (which always fall the hardest on the poor) without being first convinced of both a compensatory positive effect and a lack of alternatives less painful to the poor. For instance, a gas tax to lower consumption is all very well, but if you are a poor family that can only afford to own an older car that takes more gas than you like and you already drive as little as you can because you’re having trouble making ends meet, if higher fuel costs would also raise the cost of the food you already struggle to buy, a well-meant hike in gas prices might have a very different effect on you than intended. Therefore, a person of good morals could oppose a gas tax intended to lower consumption without thinking that higher consumption is a good thing at all!

Even among those who agree entirely about whether the global ice pack is receding or what is happening to the pH of the oceans, there is honest disagreement about why it is happening. Even among those who agree about the most likely reasons these things are happening, there is disagreement about the most moral course of action and the likely consequences of different courses of action. So while it is understandable to be frustrated with people who have an entrenched opinion without having done any work to understand what is known, how it is known, what it is thought to mean and why, even among those who understand all these things there are differences about what to do about it.

For instance, there are those who would say that capitulating to the idea that “we cannot go back to a lifestyle without cars and modern conveniences” is like capitulating to the idea that abortion ought to be allowed in cases of rape or incest. If modern “conveniences” are ruining the planet on which subsequent generations are already going to have considerable difficulty eking out a living, how can these “conveniences” be defended before the Throne of Heaven? What was fine when its cost was not understood becomes something else when the cost becomes known.

There is no morally unassailable position because there is no agreement about what consequences our choices carry. Every choice, save the personal choice of living in simplicity so as to have more personal resources with which to give alms, could have an adverse impact on someone, if not on everyone, and even the choice to give alms does not offer an automatic correct choice to take. These are complicated questions, and I think it is a cop-out to deny it, rather than a cop-out to say so.

 

[lynnvinc]

Just as you have issues that are very important to you, even though they are not the first thing you talk about, realize that not everyone who questions whether rising temperatures in various parts of the world have a human source is looking for carte blanche to trash all outdoors. Most are not, and many are as fond of nature as anyone else, if not more so. Many are frugal in their personal habits, too, just not because they think it keeps the global temperature down.

Thanks. That’s very important. There are many good reasons to be frugal and reduce, reuse, recycle, etc.

I was a Camelite before getting interested in AGW (tho I have always been concerned about various environmental problems since youth), and what attracted me to Carmel was the detachment from worldly things – nada, nada, nada, as St. John of the Cross said in Ascent of Mount Carmel:

The Ascent of Mount Carmel

To reach satisfaction in all, desire its possession in nothing.
To come to the knowledge of all, desire the knowledge of nothing.
To come to possess all, desire the possession of nothing.
To arrive at being all, desire to be nothing.
To come to the pleasure which you have not, you must go by a way in which you enjoy not.
To come to the knowledge which you have not, you must go by a way in which you know not.
To come to the possession you have not, you must go by a way in which you possess not.
To come to be what you are not, you must go by a way in which you are not.
When you turn toward something, you cease to cast yourself upon the all.
For to go from the all to the all, you must leave yourself in all.
And when you come to the possession of the all, you must possess it without wanting anything.
In this nakedness, the spirit finds its quietude and rest.
For in coveting nothing, nothing raises it up and nothing weighs it down, because it is the center of its humility.

 

[EasterJoy]

Thanks. That’s very important. There are many good reasons to be frugal and reduce, reuse, recycle, etc.

I know some children of the Depression who think global warming is a bunch of hooey, and they are far better at living a simple low-consumption life than many a global warming True Believer.

When it comes to marriage, however, there are many people who get very wound up about whether their spouse thinks the same as they do. If that’s the kind of person someone is, it is best to admit it up front. There is a lot of unnecessary cardiac damage in store for someone who can’t sleep in peace with a spouse they chose in spite of the spouse’s preference for plastic grocery bags. Anyone who marries someone with the goal of making that someone into a fixer upper is biting off a load of heartache.

 

[lynnvinc]

I know some children of the Depression who think global warming is a bunch of hooey, and they are far better at living a simple low-consumption life than many a global warming True Believer.

When it comes to marriage, however, there are many people who get very wound up about whether their spouse thinks the same as they do. If that’s the kind of person someone is, it is best to admit it up front. There is a lot of unnecessary cardiac damage in store for someone who can’t sleep in peace with a spouse they chose in spite of the spouse’s preference for plastic grocery bags. Anyone who marries someone with the goal of making that someone into a fixer upper is biting off a load of heartache.

That’s about what my husband’s uncle said – he was a parish priest in a village in India until his death at age 89 some 22 years ago: “You don’t marry someone to change them. You accept them as they are.”

BTW, no one can beat my mother-in-law (in India) for frugality, and she was not an environmentalist…tho she did use rinse water from the rice to “feed the plants” in the garden. My husband sometimes laments he suffered under her and now he’s suffering under me (tho he’s really a good sport about it)

So a good question for the OP would be how do you all get along with your spouses or romantic partners? Do you both agree about AGW, or disagree? Or is it even an issue?

 

[EasterJoy]

That’s about what my husband’s uncle said – he was a parish priest in a village in India until his death at age 89 some 22 years ago: “You don’t marry someone to change them. You accept them as they are.”

BTW, no one can beat my mother-in-law (in India) for frugality, and she was not an environmentalist…tho she did use rinse water from the rice to “feed the plants” in the garden. My husband sometimes laments he suffered under her and now he’s suffering under me (tho he’s really a good sport about it)

So a good question for the OP would be how do you all get along with your spouses or romantic partners? Do you both agree about AGW, or disagree? Or is it even an issue?

Exactly. You and your MIL don’t have to agree about why something is done in order to agree that it is well that it be done that way! Who knows, your husband might live more frugally than he thinks, even if he were a bachelor. The habits of youth have this way of coming back to us as we age…

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Folks should read the way the Europeans are rapidly backtracking away from the environmentalism that they, aided by Mr. Gore, have embraced.

And the reason they are backing away is that their economy is being completely crippled by the humongous costs of compliance.

finance.townhall.com/columnists/maritanoon/2013/04/26/environmentalists-endangered-n1579063/page/full/

maritanoon/2013/04/26/environmentalists-endangered-

 

[lynnvinc]

Folks should read the way the Europeans are rapidly backtracking away from the environmentalism that they, aided by Mr. Gore, have embraced.

And the reason they are backing away is that their economy is being completely crippled by the humongous costs of compliance.

finance.townhall.com/columnists/maritanoon/2013/04/26/environmentalists-endangered-n1579063/page/full/

maritanoon/2013/04/26/environmentalists-endangered-

Science-led people are not going to be led into rejecting the fact that there are serious enviornmental problems that harm and kill people, and also harm their finances, just because policy-led people reject the science due to misguided policies.

We should not let misguided policies inform our knowledge about enviornmental problems, but rather look for policies and mitigation measures are that not so harmful instead, even ones that help us financially.

Europeans are already much more environmental than Americans (with only 50% greenhouse gas emissions per capita as Americans), so perhaps they do not have as many “low-hanging fruits” – environmental measures that don’t cost or even save money. Here in America we have 100s, even 1000s of things we can do to mitigate environmental problems without cost to us, even saving us money. A person should be able to do at least 10 things, maybe even 50 from that list. Maybe first start out with one thing, just to test the waters to ensure no harm done.

We can get down to a 60% or more reduction in our GHG emissions (and concomitant local pollution that also harms and kills) without harm to living standards or productivity. So let’s hop to it