quote:I don't know about you Puppy, but I'd be willing to take a cut in my standard of living to save the lives of millions. I think most Americans would.
Once they were well and thoroughly convinced, I agree. I'm not sure if we're there yet, or if we ever will be, though.
The only real test of that persuasion will come with resistance to or acceptance of measures that would cut our standard of living in a sharp, noticeable-in-the-short-term way...and that hasn't happened yet, certainly not for measures designed strictly to address global warming.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know about you Puppy, but I'd be willing to take a cut in my standard of living to save the lives of millions. I think most Americans would.
Sadly, I'm not sure I agree. First off, I think it'll be, and is currently, very hard to convince people of that level of danger. They have preconceived notions of what they think is happening. And deep down, they really don't want to take a hit to their standard of living, which opens the door to willful ignorance. It'd take an act of Congress to force them out of their ways.
I think the best way to do it has to be to hit the people who will suffer IN the United States, and once you convince them that they are in danger, the whole thing will hopefully domino effect. Really, everyone would suffer. If the entire coastal US were to be moved a mile inland even, it would effect almost everyone else for a lot of reasons. I think if people continue to believe that the US is protected by a magical bubble of whatever, they'll fail to act.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh and Lyrhawn, I think that you are seeing this as an all or nothing prospect. We all make choices in the face of uncertainty every day. For example, we buy home owners insurance, sacrificing our current resources to reduce future risk.
Given the risk of Global Warming, even if its not a 100% certainty, shouldn't we be willing to spend at least some of our resources to reduce that risk?
I also notice that you are not answering for yourself but answering for the public at large. So now I ask you to answer only for yourself.
Given your currently level of conviction on Global Climate Change, what personal changes would you be willing to make?
Would you be willing to make more changes if you were confident (perhaps because of government programs) that a majority of Americans would be making similar changes?
What additional scientific evidence would you need to convince you to make a bigger change?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was speaking strictly to the statement you made about what most Americans would be willing to give up, Rabbit. I was not saying what you think I said, about actually treating this as an all or nothing prospect.
Perhaps the confusion came from the way I said, "We're not there yet." I was not talking about what I believe the science indicates in terms of how 'there' we are, I was talking about the...ummm, difficult to label...status of persuasion?...of the American people.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't need any convincing. I drive a compact car, I'd love for my next purchase to be even more fuel efficient, I buy CF lightbulbs, I wish all my energy came from solar heating and photovoltaic cells. And I think the government should be much more aggressively promoting renewable energies in the country.
And as I've said probably in this thread, and in many others, I think we should start doing what we can currently do now, and adapt new tech as it comes online.
I think Rakeesh is actually saying much closer to what I meant to say. It's the convincing that will be the hard part.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
