|
|
 Originally Posted by BennyLaRue
It's a fair suggestion but if the 3 billion poorest people become more affluent, isn't that just going to lead to an increased demand for goods that will both consume our resources quicker and lead to increases in atmospheric CO2?
Yes, but if your main goal is the well-being of mankind (not the level of atmospheric CO2) that isn't a bad thing. Also if people are more affluent they'll be better able to adapt to global warming, as opposed to the poor people in coastal regions like Bangladesh who will simply die in huge numbers if they stay poor and sea levels rise.
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Call me a sceptic, but I don't think those are the 2 options on the table for the peoples with the dollah dollah bills yo.
The point is that when you drain trillions of dollars from the world economy it's the poor who are hurt the most. While I agree there's a lot we could do to reduce global poverty, regardless of anything we do or don't do about global warming, that doesn't change the fact that bills like the cap-and-trade before Congress right now would be directly responsible for keeping millions of people in poverty.
P.S. In some ways feeding the poor and reducing global warming are the 2 options on the table. For instance, the recent increase in world food prices has a lot to do with the increased use of biofuels.
|
Reply With Quote