Quote:
Originally Posted by mooby
I do believe the growth would've continued, but to the extent it has under Trump? Doubtful. Trump's entire economic policy seems to be "is profit being held back by gov't policy? Yes? Then eliminate the policy." There hasn't been a single regulation, bill, anything that Obama signed where he said "hey you know what, this is a good move, let's leave that alone."
I don't have a lot of time, so I'll leave it at this. When 97% of scientists that aren't funded by corporations who have a vested interest in denying climate change agree that this is a man made problem, it's good enough for me. When we experience record setting temperatures every year and natural disasters that seem to get worse and worse every year, that's good enough for me. I know I know, they call it global warming yet somehow it still snows every winter.
50 years from now you'll be dead, and I'll be in my twilight years, and your grandkids/my kids will be footing the bill for the "profit > everything" lifestyle of today. Will they come up with a solution? Absolutely. Will it fix everything? Very much left to be desired.
|
Like I said, it's far more likely that the US Constitution is dead in 100 years, then an unsustainable planet exists. I don't argue the climate changes, I argue that the extent the US or any individual person (ie epa fuel standards from 25 to 30) are going to tip the scale is far overblown. We run computer simulations to the Nth degree but still can't tell if a hurricane is going to go to the east or west of the Florida panhandle. Maybe if the old geezers on the western coast had driven more Priuses the hurricane would have stayed East (not).
If environmentalists really wanted to move off of carbon, we would be have better gen 4 nuclear plants on a fast pace for approval, but fact is they have hit upon an ultimate ponzi scheme (any good ponzi scheme has facts in it). How can you argue with some who claims the end of the world is near (unless he/she claims it's based on religious beliefs of course)>