What would be the pros and cons on governments' spending on climate change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change , considering so much national money has been already spent on so many different aspects? http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...ralian-pms-adviser.291399/page-6#post-4122139
There are so many theories for both sides pros as well as cons but I don’t want to give you a lecture on it, just a piece of advice always calculate the risk. If you can deal with the risks then every thing is in your favor with every season change there is a intimation of new season so plan your course accordingly.
Perhaps we shouldn't be spending ANY money on "climate change"... certainly not big taxes on Americans for it. http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...ew-world-order-australian-pms-adviser.291399/
Just found this old, however quite interesting, Economics thread listed as a similar thread below: U.N. 'Climate Change' Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions to Form New World Economy http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...t-trillions-to-form-new-world-economy.158894/
The majority of reputable scientists agree on the cause and effects of global warming. If we were to accept that these people have a better idea of what they are talking about than we do regarding their subject matter, then I think the answer is obvious. Suppose even if the risk were not quite as imminent as they propose that it is, or as dire, how close to the line are you willing to play it? Are the savings really worth the risk a potential global catastrophe or something close to it? You probably put money in a parking meter and have home insurance. You probably have protective stops on your trades, mental or otherwise, to mitigate your risk. Many of you here have firearms, whether you need them or not, "just in case." But you are not willing to take the steps necessary to avoid potential global annihilation? Truly a study in contrasts.
That depends. It's well known that cattle release tons of methane into the atmosphere... and volcanos emit tons of CO2. Are those so huge as to dwarf man's "contribution"? If so, we shouldn't be spending ANY money on climate change... and certainly not assessing large taxes on Americans to be given to the UN.
So it's an either/or, all-or-nothing thing? Nothing in between? Like one of those "sure-thing" trades that doesn't need any kind of protective stop? Mitigation be damned? As for the offending cattle, we should probably be eating less meat anyway.
No, it's not "all or nothing". And America has made TONS of progress against emissions over the last 20 years. It's wrong to say we're "doing nothing", though I doubt the sum of America's reductions has made a dent in overall world emissions.... both man-made (China, especially) and natural planetary ones. However, the US taxing its citizens and sending large sums to the UN should not now, not EVER be part of any solution.
So you believe it's wiser to stay the course, despite the overwhelming evidence that at the current trajectory we will be met with severe consequences in our lifetime, rather than seek global cooperation and leading by example? (You know, exceptionalism, and all that.) And, as I alluded to before, even if the potential consequences were not quite as imminent or quite as dire as the overwhelming majority of the relevant scientific community believes, you are okay with driving at current speed into the "wall?" No braking whatsoever?
The notion of "overwhelming evidence" presumes much. Just because the Left says, and you believe, there is overwhelming evidence... doesn't mean it's true. The Left are fantastic LIARS.... especially when they want to push their agenda. (You should know better than to be so easily sucked in.)