by Handsome Matt
Fareed Zakaria weighs in with his two cents about Global Warming. Click Here
For further viewing pleasure: This is a teacher, who presents an argument neither for nor against global warming, but shifts the discussion to action or inaction.
This is where the debate should really be. Do we act or do we not act?
If we act
- we risk a possible global depression
- cleaner air, water
- more efficient power usage and production, vehicles
- better living conditions for the developing world
- slowing or stopping of species extinction and habitat destruction
If we don’t act
- we risk the meltdown of civilization as we know it
Jared Diamond cites environmental issues as a leading cause of civilization collapse in his book “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed” (aptly named).
- Widespread extinction
- habitat destruction
- seas rising, storms, hurricanes, smog, etc
- Biblical end of the world type events
- Rising living costs associated with fuel, power productions
- Rising pollution
Which of the two has a better outcome? We can survive a depression and be the better for it; our great grandparents did.
Can we survive the meltdown of society? Despite what movies and videogames would suggest, this isn’t a pleasant time. Read survivors accounts and see how people devolve when faced with the loss of civilization (think Fall of Rome, after the Mongols swept through Europe, The Donner Party or any other stranded settler group). Compare watching Mad Max, to actually living it. Odds are, we’d end up being “Extra no 3” the one that gets raped, killed and eaten.
Of course the estimated cost is only 1% of the GDP. To make that number more real and tangible, think of it this way: One cent of every dollar you spend can change the world. The change that you have in your pocket at the end of the day is enough money to stop the possibility of global climate change.
Check it For Yourself: