I will answer each question as concisely as possible.
I'm not convinced that man-made CO2 is a significant contributor to climate change. I accept it must have some affect. From the figures I have seen, this could be as little as 0.1% and as much as 5%.
The morality and practicality of our fossil fuel usage a closely linked. Since the consequences are predominantly one's of practicality, I'd say all the fossil fuels will be used anyway. It is in our interests to develop alternatives more quickly, not try in vane to reduce our usage by a nominal percentage. From a moral standpoint, it is wrong that future generations may not have a planet as temperate as ours is now. However, nominal reductions will not make any significant difference, wholesale alternatives will.
"Your argument seems to be.... 'we don't know how fast the boat is sinking or how much difference P***ING INTO the boat makes so we should just carry on P***ING!'. You clearly fancy a LONG swim more than you fancy RESPONSIBLE 'toilet usage'!"
My position is more like, "we don't know how fast the boat is sinking, or if we have caused it to sink, but I do know we could build a better boat."
|
|