3 ms·
Yes. Although sadly I think we live in a world where you might get more effect by promoting the financial angle. I think the simplest argument anyone can make i
by benjamincburns 13y ago
Yes. Although sadly I think we live in a world where you might get more effect by promoting the financial angle. I think the simplest argument anyone can make is that if you can do X or produce Y while consuming less energy than your competition, you'll come out ahead. If the entire world focused on this as a primary basis for long term competitive strategy, I think a ton of environmental issues would fall in line.
Either way, you're absolutely right. From a marketing standpoint, global warming is such a bad angle from which to promote environmental action.
- clarkmoody 13y agoI believe the President has already pivoted to "carbon pollution" in his latest speeches. I do believe that we need much more scientific inquiry before making radical economic policy shifts. In just 40 years (since the 70s), the environmental lobby has been pushing: global cooling global warming climate change And now it's "carbon pollution." I'm definitely a skeptic when it comes to extrapolating historical record findings into the future, especially when politics is involved. But the most compelling figure for me, concerning environmental protection, is the annual consumption of grain by livestock. A 1997 article[1] quotes a figure of 800 million people fed with the grain we are feeding livestock in America. So reducing meat consumption would save the energy used to produce the cattle but also the energy used to grow the grain to feed them. It might also make us healthier, saving healthcare costs, but that is less settled than the figures for cattle grain consumption. [1] http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-mi...