Quote:
Originally Posted by Rajoo
It's to do with regulations, less regulations, no regulations even better.
|
I feel you nailed it with this one.
After recently being mortified by learning about the on going dumping of deadly chemicals by Dupont and Monsanto, I have little to no faith in these regulatory entities. Which often have ties, some directly others not so much, with government entities.
I can understand when I first recall this issue being raised in my early 20s around the early 2000s, it wasnt as clear cut. I was hearing stories about the global cooling being talked about in the 70s (before my time). And how so much of this movement was old hat that was dis proven already.
The fact that it became so politicized once it got legs I feel was a disservice to its efforts. No fault of the movement itself. Just as nailer says, there are two parties. It further reflects how damaging this polarized political discourse is to any greater good.
I think it also reflects how, to this day, there seems to be no trusted scientific body the government or public has to look upon. There are many who get praised as being accredited and trusted. But there are also many others, with varying levels of validation and knowledge. The recent handling of the Covid pandemic and the WHO certainly shines a light on the issues of trust and how believable all these institutions might be. I simply see a need to somehow form a gov / public scientific body that is unified and fact checked. I know we kinda have a form of that now, just not well organized IMO. And clearly not well known or publicized IMO.
IMO these days there seems little reason to think carbon emissions arent harmful on varying levels. And reducing their output would be a good idea. I dont know why that cant be agreed upon universally.
Which brings us back to regulations and to expand on that, cost. This is where the tire hits the road, no pun. I feel allot of the push back politically has to do with our screwed up ties to companies / powers that be. And both parties are VERY much guilty of this. Some just have stereotypical ties. And you know what they say about stereotypes.
Another aspect of cost of carbon reduction has to do with consumers. Up till recently electric cars simply were not widely available nor affordable. Both of those hurdles are changing for the better. And they show no signs of slowing.
But this brings us back to carbon emissions with coal electric plants. Alternative energy is gaining strides, but short of hydro electric plants I cant think of something with the output of coal plants. Let alone cost. Which is why Im pro Nuclear. When done properly and safely nothing compares. I feel its a real disservice to the environment they are not better used.
So in the end I feel we are going in the greener direction. The speed at which doing so is debatable and the issues that play into that are another topic to itself. Cost to the consumer being a big one. Again massive topic to itself.
But I think its silly to not at least be on board with the pursuit of cleaner energy, recycling, waste reduction, more efficient anything. To those that want to argue this notion, yes I get it, theres many dimensions to this. But in general....