Even if global warming is wrong, are the impacts of the ideas really that bad?

Question

creating cleaner standards for corporations?

becoming more energy independent and focusing on alternative sources?

reducing waste and recycling?

oh the horror...

Answer 1

Yes, they are.



Millions of people died as a result of the banning of DDT



Power plants in third-world countries have been blocked by environmentalists which would give the poor people a semblance of a standard of living. Now they're back to the mud huts.



Goodwill shipments of food to impoverished countries have been blocked because the foods were GMO. People starved.



Auto makers are forced to make cars lighter, thereby less safe, resulting in deaths for millions MORE people.





-----> DDT, in normal doses never killed anyone. It was banned because it supposedly softened the eggs of certain birds of prey (i.e. the birds are more important than the humans)



GMO foods have not been proven to be harmful either. It's not like they were poison. People eat them in the US. They're not poison.



Cars are safer NOW. The federal government has imposed stricter standards on fuel mileage, which will force the manufacturers to make them lighter. The NTSB has stated that these cars WILL result in more highway deaths.



"New Auto Fuel Economy Standards Will Regulate Us To Death"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/16/new-auto-fuel-economy-standards-will-regulate-us-to-death/

"A 2003 NHTSA study estimated that every 100 pounds of weight taken off a car weighing more than 3,000 pounds increases the accident death rate slightly less than 5%"





See, if environmentalists actually had the guts to address the misery their movement has caused, I might consider getting on board.

Liberals such as yourself CLAIM to be the champions of poor people, yet continue to keep this HUGE blind spot on the suffering environmentalism has caused.





****Nothing? Really?

I was hoping you could tell me how I'm wrong. That dying of malaria, starving to death or dying in a car accident ARE NOT bad things.

It's okay, nobody has ever rationalized past this point. Except the one guy who sais he didn't care about all that and as far as he was concerned, the human race could go extinct. To be honest, I had nothing to say to that.

Answer 2

No, in fact I want us to pursue such things. The problem is the global warming crowd wants us to throw everything we currently use away RIGHT NOW!. What we need to do this without sinking the economy and people's jobs is a gradual shift in those directions say over the next 20-30 years or so. That way A) tecnologies for cleaner and more abundant energy have a chance to develop B) Infrastructure has a chance to be built up, C) factories and other business have time to adjust practices, and D) we have time to slowly change the mindset. There will be a huge clash of objectives as long as we are in panic mode. Given time we can make the adjustments, but as long as the global warming advocates are pushing it for NOW! it will continue to meet resistance. It would smooth things considerably if we came up with a staged implementation plan. For example, we can't do electric cars rights now because the charging stations still have to be built(also remember that electricity production currently produces a LOT more greenhouse gases than cars do). I am not arguing that the policies are not good things(although I have studied the issue and don't agree with the science). They are good for environmental quality issues. I think less pollution is a good thing, but at the same time it would hurt us to try to implement it right this second. A gradual shift would work better. Or several small shifts. If you watch the very end of "An Inconvenient Truth" Gore gave one last little pie graph, which was the only part his own graphs didn't contradict him on. It said that a 1-2% decrease in several areas would bring us back to the 1970's levels of greenhouse gas emissions. No one is suggesting that. Maybe they should.

Answer 3

Fukushima radiation reaches Pacific Coast: gov't does nothing to monitor air, food and water – California residents

22 January 2014 Voice of Russia



There are indicators that the radiation is reaching California.

The Japanese government admitted in July 2013 that more radioactive water has been coursing into the Pacific Ocean than the Japanese government first had reported.



There are signs of radioactivity in California fish. Starfish, Pacific bluefin tunas, sea lions, whales, dolphins, anchovies, and other marine animals either haves radioactive elements from the Fukushima plant, or diseases caused by radiation.



It took almost 3 years for the radioactive waters to reach the Pacific Ocean.

The effects of Fukushima will be increasing as the front edge of a large water plume coming from the Fukushima plant will reach California soon and increase over the years.

Answer 4

Charging people for the carbon dioxide they exhale through taxes to give Wall Street more stimulus funds isn't going to clean up anything. This administration is censoring the fact radiation from Fukushima is covering the west coast, tried to downplay the BP oil spill while BP is the biggest Obama contributor.

Answer 5

I want a clean environment but I hate the manipulation President Carter telling me ''we will run out of oil by the year 2000'' or because America did ratify Kyoto we don't care about mother earth I remember when America started putting smog pollution on our cars the Brits and euros thought we were crazy now they act as if they taking the lead on saving mother earth

Answer 6

Yeah.. I mean if do everything that liberals are demanding and stop develop and energy production it would only result in a few hundred million needless deaths in the developing world over the next decade. But hey, you're a liberal.. so millions of deaths doesn't deserve any more concern than a sarcastic "Oh the horror..." joke. Right?

Answer 7

the problem is:

it's not wrong.



saying there is even a debate among scientists would be completely false.



there is no more scientific debate about this than there is about the oft repeated (and quite bizarre) claim that the earth is 6,000 years old.



there has NEVER been an article submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal which successfully refutes man-made global warming.



there is NO debate among scientists about this topic. the only scientists who refute this are on the payroll of industries who will refute anything that will put a dent in next quarter's profit margin until the water level rise above their smokestacks - at which time they will YOU (the american taxpayer) to bail them out.



the real question is - are we really going to allow all kinds of industry to basically take a giant crap on our planet - all in the name of short term profits?

Answer 8

I deny Global Warming but love the ideas. I don't believe in Jesus either but follow the teachings. You don't have to believe in a myth to know what good ideas are and go with them.

Answer 9

The global-warming deniers cannot seem to accept your logic. The downside of us being wrong is that we get a cleaner planet. The downside of them being wrong is that we get no planet at all.

Answer 10

Yeah.... let's let government tax the hell out of manufacturers or anything related to oil, rubber, plastics and energy so that we can fund another massive government bureaucracy "just in case"...



...what could POSSIBLY be the downside of THAT?



oh wait... I know... another generation of kids like you who think asking the State to do things for us is the same thing as doing it ourselves...