Global Warming/Climate Change

[PerpetualImperfexion]

Have you ever wondered why some people deny climate change despite the obvious signs that its there and the fact that most scientists agree with the theory of global warming? Well I have a hypothesis. My theory is that people are afraid that if they admit the existence of it the government will try to use it to exploit our freedoms. For instance factories, etc are not allowed to dump waste into rivers. Why? Because it hurts the environment. Am I saying I don't agree with this law? Of course not. So what's the difference? In this example there's an alternative to dumping the waste in the river: putting it somewhere else. On the other hand their is no practical way to prevent pumping carbon into the atmosphere. I am all for people developing fuel efficent cars and people riding the bus and non motor vehicles everywhere but I personally would like the option to drive a large gas guzzling pickup truck. Also they would be able to create laws that would hurt factories that use fossil fuels for power. We need those factories to create jobs, forcing them to shutdown would KILL the economy. So whats' the point? People deny global warming because they think it would give the government the opportunity to control their lives through laws that are "protecting the environment". In reality we NEED these fossil fuels to survive.

[ImCoolBeans]

I'm sorry but there are so many different thoughts going on in that post, what exactly is the debate you're bringing to the table... ?

[Thunduhbuhlt]

You like contradicted yourself in that post, IDK if that was intended or not, but I see many possible debates there. Global warming, fossil fuels, dumping, cars, and probably more...

[PerpetualImperfexion]

Hmmm ok, the question: Should the government be able to introduce laws that prevent people from harming the environment even if it means we lose certain freedoms and possibly hurt the economy?

[dead]

Hmmm ok, the question: Should the government be able to introduce laws that prevent people from harming the environment even if it means we lose certain freedoms and possibly hurt the economy?

Hurt economy > deaths and absolute destroyed economy

[ImCoolBeans]

Laws that protect the environment are implemented so that the environment doesn't go further down the shitter than it already has. Getting rid of those would probably be the beginning of a terrible chain of reactions; very unclean living conditions, pollution levels worse that you could even imagine, wildlife would pretty much be a thing of the past and the food chain would be torn to pieces. So yes, I think the government should be able to introduce and enforce laws that prevent people from harming the environment.

Also, exactly what freedoms are we losing from these laws? The freedom to dump our trash in the river behind my house? The freedom for a factory to dump it's waste into an outlet that goes into the ocean? I don't really think those are freedoms man.

[Electra Heart]

That's a bit of an odd question but OK. I personally believe that it would be a good idea to do this. However, our economy being the way it is, I don't think that the government will put any serious money into any kind of environmental concern until it truly does something drastic (extinction of Bald Eagle, that kind of stuff. Not statistics on a pieve of paper)... and by then it might be too late.

[Erasmus]

Hmmm ok, the question: Should the government be able to introduce laws that prevent people from harming the environment even if it means we lose certain freedoms and possibly hurt the economy?

yes, for sure.