> But I'm not convinced addressing it is worth radically regulating global industry. This shouldn't only be looked at as an issue that doesn't affect you. Dies

> But I'm not convinced addressing it is worth radically regulating global industry. This shouldn't only be looked at as an issue that doesn't affect you. Diesel and the like aren't exactly the most healthy energy sources. Why not focus on it right now because it won't go away if we're not gonna pay attention to it. > more likely to solve the problem with a tech breakthrough, than a treaty drawn up in Brussels. These "treaties" as you like to call them help the tech advance so we can get a breakthrough earlier. Why would the whole world would want to advance something when there is no financial drive for it? The government speeds up the process. > If GW is the existential threat many make it out to be, why is nuclear energy given so little consideration? I understand the risk of meltdown and the solid waste management issues, but those seem like manageable risks in comparison with the scary unknowability that global warming brings. Nuclear energy is given a considerable amount of consideration. The major breakthrough that is bound to happen the coming 10 years hopefully is how to manage nuclear fusion. How we can use the energy that is released when 2 atomic nuclei "merge"? (to put it bluntly) > Data seems to show the negative effects of global warming are arriving more slowly than expected. It seems like we'll have the ability to slowly adjust to changes that come, rather than imposing radical sanctions on us today. This may turn out to be a mistaken assumption, but it is what it is. Completely false, global warming is happening faster than was anticipated and it keeps climbing to a level at which we can no longer control it. We cannot simply stop this from happening and there is no switch to turn it around, we need to stop it from rising before we no longer can.