by AgentR11 » Tue 22 Mar 2011, 14:48:52
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', 'Y')ou fail to establish a policy position. If you believe in GW and PO then all I can see you support by default is doom.
I have in many other posts set forth my policy preferences. They start by accepting the fact that no action that the US is capable of, neither large, nor small, will have even the smallest impact on the end result of global climate change. *ALL* policy efforts concerning this problem should be focused on creating solid, useful projections, and making adaptations that will enable survival within the confines of the projected result. We can start with the simple things, choosing *NOT* to rebuild cities that are destroyed by climatological forces; they get destroyed because they are in the WRONG place. Don't rebuild there, rebuild stuff at the location that the people fled to. More difficult things involve GM efforts to adapt grains to thrive in predicted temperature and precipitation ranges, teaching people about their changing health risks, forceful advocacy in FAVOR of alternative energy sources including the currently maligned fission reactors, broad based, consumer focused incentives towards efficiency; etc..
I've discussed all those in many other topics here over the years; but this thread was about what the draw is for right wingers; and my point in the post is that the nature of the problems themselves is very responsive to right wing leaning policies; even if the fluff and publicity that overshadows them is usually set in terms of "green", "lefty", or "socialist" ideals.
ps... I disdain the use of the phrase "believe in" in regards to PO or GCC. There is no belief involved, only math.