Quote:
Originally Posted by Orius  Unfortunately political action is necessary when the global corporate dynamic has more power than ever before in history.
At no previous time have corporations and private business been larger than governmets. Since this has come to pass the problem has arisen that these corporations need to be held accountable for their actions on the one hand and also regulated to some degree to keep them from abusing their positions/power at the expense of the global ecosystem. What type of regulation needs to take place is what the debate is about.
For an example, CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons) were banned in massive industrial usage once it was discovered they were depleting the ozone layer to a massive degree. Replacement for the CFC's were found and life went on. Since the CFC bans in the 80's the hole in the ozone has shrunk. (Wow, we did something.)
The problem with the cliimate issue is that it's very complex with multiple issues stemming from multiple causes and these are also mixed in with the natural climate patterns the planet is going through anyway.
This is not a black and white issue, those who say the sky is falling are probably a little alarmist but those who laugh at the alarmists are being too dismissive of an actual problem that needs a little more reasearch and clarification.
Many accredited scientitsts have stated that global climate is a problem, and they are the ones who can tell.
My thought is this:
Which seems more likely, that there is a global climate problem and corporate interests that would stand to lose money are waging a campaign to confuse the issue to protect their interests or there is no climate problem and a very large number of educated scientists have been completely fooled in the fields they've studied and mastered via many years of study? |
I would say neither.
I don't blame the corporations the least bit. They are only providing for what the public wants. The vast majority of the population simply hasn't cared about this issue. Nor have any politicians. For starters the issue of global warming is not as simple (relatively) as was the issue with CFC's.
To resolve global warming - as we have discussed - will indeed require an entire change in the very methods in which we approach both energy usage and energy production.
The proponents of changing the status quo have all the scientific basis as well as the moral high ground. But seriously lacked any sexiness or appeal based on something that was clearly not an immediacy. Not so with the ozone hole - that was seen as an immediacy and the remedy was quite simple - not life altering.
Frankly most of the industrialized world didn't really care for changing their life styles to protect something that was not very clear cut danger, the opposition absolutely loved this aspect of non-immediacy and screaming that the chicken littles say that how you live is wrong.
However, now having ignored the problem of environmentalism, now comes an interesting problem with the wallet. If anything when it starts to hurt people's wallets is when people demand immediate results.
And look at the domino effect - GM that was saying it couldn't be done, that it was impractical is about to push out the Chevy Volt, and already there's a waiting list for this car. Saturn the Vue hybrid. Ford's Escape hybrid and various others, all of a sudden they can now produce cars profitably where they first said was impossible (even in 2006?).
Even the European automakers that laughed at Toyota for their hybrids (understandable given that Diesle is similar in range) are now singing a different tune. BMW X3, 7series hybrids even possibly an electric Mini?
Merc S class hybrid
So it's not so much that the corperations were wrong doing, but simply the market/public didn't care - well, they certainly are doing so now.