This was on the boards, and I had to share it and my response to it.
I enjoyed his argument, but some of it bothered me.
The part I didn't like the most about this is that taking care of the environment would cause a economic global depression is listed as a possibility.
It is fairly obvious it would stimulate growth in new sectors. In fact, it already has for Germany and their Solar energy programs. The idea that by switching to alternative energy sources, stopping deforestation, cutting back on pollution of the air, water and land would create a global economic depression is ridiculous.
If we are going to do this, new industry will sprout up all over the place.
How are we to better filter/eliminate the pollutants we create?
What materials will we be using to build homes, if we can't use wood?
What kinds of cars will we drive? Who will build these new cars?
Stopping this snowball rolling down the mountain will require new ideas and new industries. Mature technologies such as solar cells and electric cars, will need more marketing and will involve new sales tactics. All of that would hardly lead to economic depression. Yes, there are some extremist environmentalists who are saying, we all need to start riding bikes right now, but it doesn't have to be that way.
The possibility of an economic depression happening because we start to change the way we do things to protect our world shouldn't be on his list, because there is absolutely no evidence to show it would occur. If anything all evidence suggests that it would be an economic shot in the arm (unless you're an oil baron).
Protecting our environment would lead to many more jobs than layoffs in the long run, also without a dependency on oil the Middle East could be left to figure out why the hate each other, alone.
Most of the governments on this planet would have to start working together, and using our tax money efficiently (no more Gaybombs or TV stations that advertise terrorism, or Halliburton contracts) If people wanted to do this correctly, it would be a global effort and that would in fact require us all to be drawn closer together.
The question of whether or not we should do something shouldn't even be on the table anymore. The question should be, how are we going to do it?
I also didn't like the argument because public policy is not the only issue in America, yes it worked in Germany but there is a huge difference. In this country businesses need to be convinced that their profit margins will not suffer dramatically because of the changes ahead. Public policy can give them tax refunds and other benefits if they meet certain regulations, but the primary motivation for stock holders and board members is cash value. Already a number of businesses exist that broker solar energy to businesses (you might have seen your grocery store has a solar panel roof), but that is hardly enough.
People need to go out there and start convincing investors that there is a great deal of money to be made by creating planet friendly products, tools, etc. A good start is the Tesla car, make no mistake if I had an extra $98k laying around, I'd have put a down payment on it already. Planet healthy alternatives getting the funding they need will require different kinds of people to work together, those in the environmental science world and those in the business world. It should be exciting, and people should be embracing it, it is a possibility that this will be the greatest challenge that humans will ever face.
So, I just made a grid.
Science is wrong:
We do something:
We create many, many new jobs and industries. We become more energy efficient on a global scale. The world economy booms, because of all the new development.
We do nothing:
The global economy remains tied to oil, nothing really changes. EDIT (except, for when we run out of oil)
Science is right:
We do something:
We create many, many new jobs and industries. We become more energy efficient on a global scale. The world economy booms, because of all the new development. We possibly avoid global catastrophe or at the very least mitigate how terrible it might have been.
We do nothing:
Welcome to hell.
So, with that done:
column a:
We do something:
We create many, many new jobs and industries. We become more energy efficient on a global scale. The world economy booms, because of all the new development.
We do something:
We create many, many new jobs and industries. We become more energy efficient on a global scale. The world economy booms, because of all the new development. We possibly avoid global catastrophe or at the very least mitigate how terrible it might have been.
column b:
We do nothing:
The global economy remains tied to oil, nothing really changes.
We do nothing:
Welcome to hell.
Yes, his possibilities in his grid are equally valid when looked at purely as possibilities. My grid sweetens the deal is all
I enjoyed his argument, but some of it bothered me.
The part I didn't like the most about this is that taking care of the environment would cause a economic global depression is listed as a possibility.
It is fairly obvious it would stimulate growth in new sectors. In fact, it already has for Germany and their Solar energy programs. The idea that by switching to alternative energy sources, stopping deforestation, cutting back on pollution of the air, water and land would create a global economic depression is ridiculous.
If we are going to do this, new industry will sprout up all over the place.
How are we to better filter/eliminate the pollutants we create?
What materials will we be using to build homes, if we can't use wood?
What kinds of cars will we drive? Who will build these new cars?
Stopping this snowball rolling down the mountain will require new ideas and new industries. Mature technologies such as solar cells and electric cars, will need more marketing and will involve new sales tactics. All of that would hardly lead to economic depression. Yes, there are some extremist environmentalists who are saying, we all need to start riding bikes right now, but it doesn't have to be that way.
The possibility of an economic depression happening because we start to change the way we do things to protect our world shouldn't be on his list, because there is absolutely no evidence to show it would occur. If anything all evidence suggests that it would be an economic shot in the arm (unless you're an oil baron).
Protecting our environment would lead to many more jobs than layoffs in the long run, also without a dependency on oil the Middle East could be left to figure out why the hate each other, alone.
Most of the governments on this planet would have to start working together, and using our tax money efficiently (no more Gaybombs or TV stations that advertise terrorism, or Halliburton contracts) If people wanted to do this correctly, it would be a global effort and that would in fact require us all to be drawn closer together.
The question of whether or not we should do something shouldn't even be on the table anymore. The question should be, how are we going to do it?
I also didn't like the argument because public policy is not the only issue in America, yes it worked in Germany but there is a huge difference. In this country businesses need to be convinced that their profit margins will not suffer dramatically because of the changes ahead. Public policy can give them tax refunds and other benefits if they meet certain regulations, but the primary motivation for stock holders and board members is cash value. Already a number of businesses exist that broker solar energy to businesses (you might have seen your grocery store has a solar panel roof), but that is hardly enough.
People need to go out there and start convincing investors that there is a great deal of money to be made by creating planet friendly products, tools, etc. A good start is the Tesla car, make no mistake if I had an extra $98k laying around, I'd have put a down payment on it already. Planet healthy alternatives getting the funding they need will require different kinds of people to work together, those in the environmental science world and those in the business world. It should be exciting, and people should be embracing it, it is a possibility that this will be the greatest challenge that humans will ever face.
So, I just made a grid.
Science is wrong:
We do something:
We create many, many new jobs and industries. We become more energy efficient on a global scale. The world economy booms, because of all the new development.
We do nothing:
The global economy remains tied to oil, nothing really changes. EDIT (except, for when we run out of oil)
Science is right:
We do something:
We create many, many new jobs and industries. We become more energy efficient on a global scale. The world economy booms, because of all the new development. We possibly avoid global catastrophe or at the very least mitigate how terrible it might have been.
We do nothing:
Welcome to hell.
So, with that done:
column a:
We do something:
We create many, many new jobs and industries. We become more energy efficient on a global scale. The world economy booms, because of all the new development.
We do something:
We create many, many new jobs and industries. We become more energy efficient on a global scale. The world economy booms, because of all the new development. We possibly avoid global catastrophe or at the very least mitigate how terrible it might have been.
column b:
We do nothing:
The global economy remains tied to oil, nothing really changes.
We do nothing:
Welcome to hell.
Yes, his possibilities in his grid are equally valid when looked at purely as possibilities. My grid sweetens the deal is all