Applying Similar Logic

In the beginning, there were discussions. Discussions of the war, and what the reasoning and outcome would be. At one point, I remember saying, “Who gives a damn if they find WMD or not? What’s the cost of us being wrong? One dead dictator? I’m willing to take that risk if need be.”

Well, not to debate the merits of the war in Iraq or its current status, but let’s ponder that for a minute. The risk of being wrong would mean Saddam was removed from power and the world would be a better place.

Now let’s apply that to the environment.

Let’s say human beings have zero effect on the climate, climate cycles, or global warming and cooling. Let’s say we’re all wrong. But in the mean time, we’re actually trying to do something to rectify the situation. What’s the worst that will happen?

Reduced greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

Better quality of life for our kids?

Clean water free of chemicals?

Cars that don’t disintegrate from acid rain?

I mean, if we’re willing to make a mistake with a dictator, why aren’t we willing to take that same chance with our environment? Even if it does nothing to stop global warming and help climate change, the “risk” of doing something to try and mitigate the situation is that we actually help the environment.

Why are the people who are so willing to believe the first part of my post here so unwilling to believe the second?

This entry was posted in Ironic. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.slobokan.com Slobokan

    I don’t think most people on the right necessarily believe the first part of your post either.

    People on both sides of the war in Iraq only believe what they want to believe and they are quick to spout information they claim to be fact, when reality states otherwise.

    It’s the same with the environment.

    In their minds there is no problem with the environment because they only see and hear the information they want to believe and they too are spouting information they claim to be fact when reality clearly states otherwise.

    The difference?

    In Iraq, what’s done is done, good or bad, that’s reality.

    With the environment we all have the opportunity to change things, for the better, and if we don’t, there might not be a reality to believe in anyway.

    Funny thing those rose colored glasses, they make people act strangely.

  • Geoff Dean

    Most environmentalists seem to think people are the problem. If all the people could be wiped out the world would be a better place.

  • Dave

    Not *all* the people, just all the *other* people. Remember Barbara Striesand saying Americans shouldn’t use air conditioners even though her house is air conditioned?

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    Geoff: Not everyone who wants to see something done about global warming is a rabid environmentalist that wants an end to the human race.

    Dave: I don’t base what I think is right or wrong or what I should do on what happens in Hollywood. They’re just a bunch of moralless fools who will fly in the wind anyway it blows. For most of them, the environment is a cause du jour right up there with the Anybody but Bush(tm) crowd.

  • pete from astoria

    I don’t think that’s it’s a matter of not believing. Many people are fed up with all of the mixed messages and contradictions that come out of the media and our government. One month some particular food causes cancer, the next month it’s called healthy. Most people just don’t have time to keep up with this mish mash of information. Most people also realize that most information is usually slanted towards the point of view of a particular interest group. Some people (most of the readers of this blog) have the will, and interest to decipher this information, but most don’t. That doesn’t make them dumb or uncaring; it’s just that they are so busy raising their kids, working 50 hours per week, etc. My problem with this situation is that we have yet to hear any common sense doable solutions to this real or perceived problem. Kyoto is not a valid answer! Needless to say there are gigantic issues to consider in tackling this issue; Economic, technological, social, (national sovereignty) and personal freedom. I have yet to hear any specific solutions that deal with these issues. All I hear is Kyoto, Kyoto, Kyoto!
    Meanwhile, the most obvious starting point, a common sense way to start addressing the issue is totally ignored by all sides. I’m talking about immigration. Legal and illegal!
    When our population nearly doubles in the next fifty years, what is that going to do to our environment, our natural resources? Where are all of these people going to live? They are obviously going to use more energy and drive cars! I have yet to hear any environmentalist or politician address the population issue. Why?

  • http://www.chapel-perilous.net bsti

    “What’s the cost of us being wrong? One dead dictator? I’m willing to take that risk if need be.”
    There’s a bit more cost than that, unfortunately.

  • http://www.dogsnot.net Gordon the Magnificent

    We’re long overdue for environmental reforms.

  • http://www.slobokan.com/ Slobokan

    I don’t think most people on the right necessarily believe the first part of your post either.

    People on both sides of the war in Iraq only believe what they want to believe and they are quick to spout information they claim to be fact, when reality states otherwise.

    It’s the same with the environment.

    In their minds there is no problem with the environment because they only see and hear the information they want to believe and they too are spouting information they claim to be fact when reality clearly states otherwise.

    The difference?

    In Iraq, what’s done is done, good or bad, that’s reality.

    With the environment we all have the opportunity to change things, for the better, and if we don’t, there might not be a reality to believe in anyway.

    Funny thing those rose colored glasses, they make people act strangely.

  • http://www.slobokan.com/ Slobokan

    I don’t think most people on the right necessarily believe the first part of your post either.

    People on both sides of the war in Iraq only believe what they want to believe and they are quick to spout information they claim to be fact, when reality states otherwise.

    It’s the same with the environment.

    In their minds there is no problem with the environment because they only see and hear the information they want to believe and they too are spouting information they claim to be fact when reality clearly states otherwise.

    The difference?

    In Iraq, what’s done is done, good or bad, that’s reality.

    With the environment we all have the opportunity to change things, for the better, and if we don’t, there might not be a reality to believe in anyway.

    Funny thing those rose colored glasses, they make people act strangely.

  • Geoff Dean

    Most environmentalists seem to think people are the problem. If all the people could be wiped out the world would be a better place.

  • Geoff Dean

    Most environmentalists seem to think people are the problem. If all the people could be wiped out the world would be a better place.

  • Dave

    Not *all* the people, just all the *other* people. Remember Barbara Striesand saying Americans shouldn’t use air conditioners even though her house is air conditioned?

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Geoff: Not everyone who wants to see something done about global warming is a rabid environmentalist that wants an end to the human race.

    Dave: I don’t base what I think is right or wrong or what I should do on what happens in Hollywood. They’re just a bunch of moralless fools who will fly in the wind anyway it blows. For most of them, the environment is a cause du jour right up there with the Anybody but Bush(tm) crowd.

  • pete from astoria

    I don’t think that’s it’s a matter of not believing. Many people are fed up with all of the mixed messages and contradictions that come out of the media and our government. One month some particular food causes cancer, the next month it’s called healthy. Most people just don’t have time to keep up with this mish mash of information. Most people also realize that most information is usually slanted towards the point of view of a particular interest group. Some people (most of the readers of this blog) have the will, and interest to decipher this information, but most don’t. That doesn’t make them dumb or uncaring; it’s just that they are so busy raising their kids, working 50 hours per week, etc. My problem with this situation is that we have yet to hear any common sense doable solutions to this real or perceived problem. Kyoto is not a valid answer! Needless to say there are gigantic issues to consider in tackling this issue; Economic, technological, social, (national sovereignty) and personal freedom. I have yet to hear any specific solutions that deal with these issues. All I hear is Kyoto, Kyoto, Kyoto!
    Meanwhile, the most obvious starting point, a common sense way to start addressing the issue is totally ignored by all sides. I’m talking about immigration. Legal and illegal!
    When our population nearly doubles in the next fifty years, what is that going to do to our environment, our natural resources? Where are all of these people going to live? They are obviously going to use more energy and drive cars! I have yet to hear any environmentalist or politician address the population issue. Why?

  • http://www.chapel-perilous.net/ bsti

    “What’s the cost of us being wrong? One dead dictator? I’m willing to take that risk if need be.”
    There’s a bit more cost than that, unfortunately.

  • http://www.chapel-perilous.net/ bsti

    “What’s the cost of us being wrong? One dead dictator? I’m willing to take that risk if need be.”
    There’s a bit more cost than that, unfortunately.

  • http://www.dogsnot.net/ Gordon the Magnificent

    We’re long overdue for environmental reforms.

  • http://www.dogsnot.net/ Gordon the Magnificent

    We’re long overdue for environmental reforms.