I think our stance should be - 'it may be too late, it may not, we can't
be sure, so we should move to zero emissions as rapidly as technically
feasible (not politically feasible, since political feasibility is not
an objective concept, it's a subjective one - what is politically
feasible depends on what you believe is politically feasible) and also
put a lot of *government* money into researching ways of removing carbon
from the atmosphere.
Of course what is technically feasible depends on lifestyle - a vegan
diet will emit a lot less GHGs. Is it morally acceptable to force
people to become vegan? I believe it is. As the saying goes, 'Eat an
animal, starve a child'
Chris
Jonathan Ward wrote:
>
> That was my concern. That and that as time slips away, the incentive to
> act will be overridden by head in the sands, too late to do anything
> reactions, depending on the intervening period.
>
>
> CHRIS KEENE wrote:
> > I think it is very unwise to make such a prediction - the science
> > doesn't justify it. And when we reach 100 months and still nothing
> > has been done, do we just give up?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > Jonathan Ward wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.onehundredmonths.org/
> >> Does anyone know who decided the tipping point for this, and from what
> >> information? Just out of interest.
> >>
> >> Any chance such a clock would be -posted in TImes Square, Piccadily
> >> Circus etc?
> >>
> >> I wonder how people will generally react to countdowns?
> >>
> >> Jonathan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Win £3000 to spend on whatever you want at Uni! Click here to WIN!
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Find out how to make Messenger your very own TV! Try it Now!
> <http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/101719648/direct/01/>
|