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?
Man… I wrote that almost 5 years ago and it’s friggin’ brilliant…
