|
|
|
|
|
|
by arrrg
2621 days ago
|
|
|
If all humans were killed climate change would also be a solved problem. Cures that are worse than the disease do exist and are unacceptable. One central tenet also among environmental advocacy groups is in general that climate change advocacy cannot be used as a tool for oppression with a “we got what we want, fuck everyone else” attitude. |
|
|
Personally, I don't like the idea that the expression of some latent genes may produce this monster:
https://www.thestar.com/news/2009/02/04/croceating_snake_was...
Which is only possibly if the temperature goes up considerably. Which means that my answer is: "Yes, some climate change is a problem". From the perspective of the giant snakes, the answer is the same: yes, climate cooling is a problem. Go figure, the same answer on any change. On the contrary, climate staying the same? Trees are, in general, happier if there is more CO2. There are lots of trees -- if they had a "vote", I'm pretty sure they want more CO2. So, in favour of warming.
All of this (our needs, snake needs, tree needs, etc) makes for a very interesting and complex problem.
What I don't understand is "climate change advocacy". Given that the climate changes, is that advocacy for more change? Less change? And how is this a "tool for oppression"? I live in Canada -- we have a carbon tax, which is oppressive.
Can you clarify a bit?
Thanks in advance FredW