3 ms·
Or rich nations subsidizing nuclear power in the poor nations who are manufacturing stuff for them. We've effectively off-shored our manufacturing pollution. T
by sevenless 10y ago
Or rich nations subsidizing nuclear power in the poor nations who are manufacturing stuff for them. We've effectively off-shored our manufacturing pollution.
The atmosphere and oceans are a common good, and it's hard to see how we'll stop polluting without enforceable agreements. And that means some entity has to do the enforcing.
Global warming denial seems to be an ideological necessity to the right-wing because they can't accept a problem exists that can only be solved by global governance. Witness the poster you're replying to, suggesting we accept human extinction rather than taxes and regulation.
- baakss 10y ago>Witness the poster you're replying to, suggesting we accept human extinction rather than taxes and regulation. Straw man or False dilemma?
- coldtea 10y agoNeither, unless you can propose a third option.
- baakss 10y ago>The potential solutions that come to mind range from, on the pessimistic end, apocalyptic, to technological if we are to be optimistic. We'll either think our way out of the crisis with cleaner sources of energy, or nature will have it's way and our population will dwindle. That was the original statement. To me, the fact that 'range' is included, means there's more than just two choices implied. I do believe it misrepresents the argument to suggest that there's only two 'extremes' of "taxes and regulation" or else "we go extinct."
- sevenless 10y agoSo taxes and regulation are an "extreme". I call that extremist thinking.