Quote:
Originally Posted by maskedmelon
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
this is a reasonable position and i agree with most of it. i think your second assertion is a bit off though. we are very confident humans have contributed to the change, but we do not know the magnitude of the contribution. the problem with advancing absolutes is that any grain of contrary evidence shatters the argument.
I've a question though. Given that it cannot be reversed quickly and despite broad agreement that we should do what we can to avoid exacerbating the condition (ignoring that there are benefits to warmer climates such as increased crop yields and an overall greener planet) do you think adaptation ought to be prioritized more, especially given that the west's ability to throttle any changes diminishes as rapidly as the third world industrializes?
|
Also, how does a world without borders and open migration into the first world help to alleviate concerns over Climate Change considering that the carbon footprint per capita is much higher in the first world than the third world.
Also, how does the globalized distribution of wares produced in distant lands with cheaper communist labor pools help to alleviate the effects of Climate Change.
Both of these abovementioned points, are included in the leftist platform. How do we reconcile the leftist platform of Globalization/Migration without borders with Environmentalism IF this is true?