Environmental roundup

5 Comments

  • Adler claims that the climate debate should focus on what to do about the threat rather than if the threat exists. But he is wrong. If the climate only will warm 1 deg C by 2100, then nothing needs to be done at all. If it will warm 2 deg C by 2100 but any policy that would prevent this warming will put people into poverty (which kills) then the cure would be worse than the disease. We already see international aid agencies refusing to loan money for power plants in Africa (because climate change), which is criminal in my view.

  • How do you address a threat that you can’t define?

    • Do nothing is a valid response.

    • By spending trillions of dollars and passing oppressive laws that won’t make a difference. By using climate change as an excuse to move the country from a capitalism based system to a socialist system by way of the Green New Deal.

  • “The Climate Debate Should Focus on How to Address the Threat of Climate Change, Not Whether Such a Threat Exists”

    Yes, and we should also encourage small children to fear the monster under their beds regardless of whether it exists or not.

Join the Discussion

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.