Does money affect our attitude towards global warming?

Question

pls explain this is part of a debate

Answer 1

The political side of the issue is very much like that in the USA prior to WWII. Big Money (the Rockefellers, Kennedys, Getty's, Morgans, etc were making big money trading with the fascists in Europe, supplying arms to Franco, Mussolini and Hitler). They referred to themselves as "fascists". They branded those who supported the opposition in Europe as "liberals" "Socialists", "Communists", "Bolsheviks" and so forth.

You see the same thing going on with environmental issues today. The wealthier people benefit by continued use of petroleum technology despite its relative obsolescence, so they label everyone else as Leftists. The American government supports Saudi Arabia and the other middle eastern countries where 75% of the earths proven oil reserves are found.

With the pre-WWII case, international policy support of the fascists in Europe pretty much ended with Pearl Harbor. Within the USA the use of the Leftist labeling of political enemies and related tactics continued and intensified well into the 1950's. The country and many individuals paid a terrible price for the use of that labeling as a tool to justify some very unconstitutional persecution. That would have surely led to tyranny, had not some brave individuals stood up to the American fascists.

Environmental issues did not always have this political side, certainly not to the degree it does today. That began in 2000, and has been one of the defining features of the current Administration. The beauty of it is you get to choose which you will believe (for now at least). You can read the links below and believe the scientists, or harken to the call of the politicos and believe it is the work of the "Reds".

Answer 2

No - Why should it?  Both the rich and poor derive the benefits from a clean environment.

Answer 3

Not in the way you might imagine.

I own as part of my retirement funding a lot of oil and gas in Canada. So if you think I want to promote rapid consumption you could not be more wrong.

I want to slow down our extraction, defer extraction to a later time so that it will have more value. If we rush it to market today, I feel we lose the opportunity to sell into a higher price structure later on.

I strongly encourage all oil and coal extraction businesses to hold onto their reserves rather than sell them now.

Now, my self interest appears to align perfectly with the interest of the planet, and the interest of future generations who will need these resources.

Answer 4

If you are a scientist who is looking for a government grant or one trying to stay employed at a university, your attitude towards Gloobial Worming will be one of conforming to what is required of you by those who control your funding.  In this case, you will believe in GW, or you will have to go out and get a REAL job.  That is why the "Global Warming is Absolutely True or We WIll Kill You Crowd" can claim " Eleven out of ten scientists have proven Global Warming is happening right now and if you dont give us more money and power, the earth will burst into flames by next tuesday".

Answer 5

yes because the companies are pumping out emissions because they don't want to stop productivity hence profit!! and i think that a litre of petrol in UK is 1 pound and moving up and more than half of that is tax and the argument is that the govt. want our money and its not just a penalty as they banned the use of chip/ fries fat oil for fuel which is environmentally friendly

Answer 6

Why do you think Al Gore went to all the trouble to make a documentary, and pollutes the atmosphere flying all over the world in his private jet?!  He doesn't do it for free!!!