I see you don't have the courage of your convictions.

It's not a binary decision, waste gate. Sustainable development means acheiving all the goals that you can, without decreasing the quality of life for future generations. There's a certain amount of carbon/nitrous oxide/general pollution that the planet can take. To work against human-induced climate change doesnt have to require total abandonment of a modern lifestyle, just some widespread changes.

You can "challenge you to have the courage of your convictions" all you want, but please dont make absurd statements.

So you don't really believe your own position. The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Take the first step.

Maybe less yoda-posturing and a little more explication?

Your not a stupid man you know exactly what I'm saying. If you are not willing to make sacrafices for what you believe you have no ground to stand on.

I for one will be looking for opportunities in the climate change, not the doom and gloom. Currently Haliburton is a good bet.

You are positing that to believe humankind is causing global warming necessitates giving up transport, electricity, home heating.

^This^ is all rubbish. How dare you breathe, we need that oxygen etc etc I could go on all day.

Um, ok. Where did I say that I'm not willing, or indeed that I'm not currently doing my part?

First part. That is some of the most ignorant **** i've ever had the misfortune of reading. Ever hear of a little word called "INFRASTRUCTURE"?

Second part.
Shut up. Don't EVER challenge that to me. EVER! Something about a 7 years Time in Service makes me take that comment VERY personnaly.

First, get off your high horse Man. You aren't the only vet here and even if you were that gives you absolutely no right to tell anyone to shut up.

Secondly, tossing out a word like infrastructure out means absolutely nothing.

The US alone has a land mass of 3,539,224 sq miles. What infrastructure is going to cover that area? What infrastructure is going to reduce (sufficiently) the needs of 6.5 billion people to the point that global warming is reversed or at least stabilized? Assuming of course global warming has anything to do with human activity at all?

edit:

modding myself.

This crap just aint worth having an anerisum over. Screw this place.

Whoa, whoa!

That said... I agree with Ducimius.

On the other hand, why spew the "challenges" when I don't think anyone here would think that anyone plans to throw out modern technology. I have yet to hear anyone but ultra-green extremists argue for something like that.

But I don't see something like cutting down on fossil fuels, promoting energy efficiency, and giving up on excess wasting of resources as unreasonable. Hell, you can challenge me all you like and I'll say I'm living my ideal - never in my life have I over-consumed or wasted energy; I'm quite fine using public transport, being a very modest buyer-of-things, eating little meat, and if I ever get a car - it'll be a smart and economical little thing built for the purpose of getting a bloke like me from A to B, just what 99% of people need them for.

Noone on the left of the spectrum (and you can't get further left than me) argues
for some severe banning of consumption, but rather against unreasonable waste. I know what you'll say - wasting is a right. But don't rights come with responsibilities? Eh?

Fine, fair does, you carry on what you're doing, let the sea levels rise, I mean, who really cares about Eastern England and Holland, eh? And all those little islands in the Carribbean? Naaah, it doesn't matter, we'll be alright.

And all the refugees from the equatorial regions? No problems, we need someone to dig all these swimming pools, install all those air con units.
The crops have caught fire? Oh, never mind, we can just export from another country...their crops have caught fire? Oh, never mind, we'll just have to have meat, never mind those tree hugging veggies.

Wow...the hurricanes are powerful this season, but never mind....we didn't really want Houston anyway...and the Midwest? Naah...we can do without it, besides, all that dust and desert condictions...not good for my tan.

So...yeah, roll on climate change!! I'll be sitting in my cave far up Everest where the weather should be just about habitable for my children.

I found the following question posed to 3 professionals in this week's Businessweek Magazine:
I have no particular opinion regarding who is right. There are credible professionals on all sides. However, my personal opinion in such cases of doubt is to side with what overall would be best for everyone. Reducing polution, using resources more efficiently and the political benefits of reducing the use of fossil fuels is good for everybody, except maybe for the Saudis. :smug:

Heh, I got you beat. I walk to and from work... :D

Seriously though, while it will never be eliminated completely people waste considerably less than they used to. Even the so called gas guzzling SUVs are much cleaner and more fuel efficient than earlier models.

The UK amongst others is trying to persuade other countries to tackle climate change, however I wonder if it is a wasted effort given that rapidly emerging economies such as China plan to build no fewer than 500 new coal-fired power stations, opening at a rate of one per week, adding to some 2,000 power stations, that produce carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. Against this, I feel it would be more prudent for Governments to put more resources in to ways to combat the resulting effects of climate change rather than to try and change the views and the way that other countries produce energy, which in the end might ultimately fail.

I also agree with earlier posts that in the UK the Government will use global warming as an excuse to raise taxes.

Nemo

So if we do manage to reverse what could very well be a natural global warming cycle and accidentally trigger an ice age, which scientists were claiming we were going into as recently as the 1970s, how do you think jolly old England will fare then?