Argue for or against the following plan: The public controversy about greenhouse gases?

  • Follow publicly
  • Follow privately
  • Unfollow
argue for or against the following plan: The public controversy about greenhouse gases is too crisis-oriented and off to one side of more important issues, namely a.) the long-term more
Best Answer
In general, I find myself in agreement with both Liberal and Mike. Here is a better plan:
Generally, "renewable energy generation" is a political code word for nuclear breeder reactors like reactor number 3 at Fukushima.
If you want to say wind, wave, tidal, solar, and hydro, you need to say so, otherwise the nuclear industry will end up with all but a token of the funding you are creating. Do you really think that Fukushima is economical?

As for setting aside politics for an unelected "World Energy Authority similar in some respects to the United Nations", we have already tried that, and the results were not pretty.
Historically, no such "Authority" (NAFTA, the European Economic Community, NATO, the UN) has ever remained "‘non-political’ and single-mission focused", and voters have always rejected such Authorities unless coerced.
You idea of using government subsidies to get people to use cheaper energy is misguided. Market forces naturally find the least expensive way to do things. Government subsidies prevent this from happening.
I do agree with you that "No plan could be more effective against poverty created by industrial development in very poor countries." Industrial development has certainly been the most effective way to end poverty, but even communist countries like China had to abandon their attempts to industrialize using a Dirigisme approach. Generally, these countries could not even feed their populations until they allowed local cost based decisions to override central political decisions.
As for greenhouse gases, they can be studied to death, but the result of the studies so far is that additional CO2 will not have much affect on Earth's climate.


  • 1
  • Comment

Other Answers (3)

Rated Highest
  • Rated Highest
  • Oldest
  • Newest
  • liberal_60 answered 3 years ago
    Argument against:
    The "plan" contains a remarkable and odd collection of false assumptions, impractical ideas, and anti-democratic ideas. Namely.

    False assumptions in the plan:

    The controversy about climate change is "crisis oriented." False. The crisis exists mostly in the rhetoric of the contrarians who keep shouting that the scientists of the world are creating a false crisis. In fact scientists are trying to present us with information so that we can take steps to avoid a real crisis in the future.

    The science is of climate change is "uncertain." False. The only uncertainties about climate change are in matters of degree and details. There is ample evidence of warming and man's responsibility for it. For summaries see these sites from NOAA and NASA:
    from NOAA and NASA
    Virtually every organization of scientists on the planet and every scientific publication agrees. There are only a handful of contrarians. You may wish to consider the opinion of the British Royal Society

    And the opinion of the editors of Science Magazine

    Impractical Ideas in the "plan"

    Renewable energy generation is "potentially cheaper" than generation with fossil fuels.
    This is impractical except maybe in the very long run. There is no evidence that renewable energy is going to become cheap within our lifetimes.

    Put aside politics to accomplish the plan. Impractical. Politics is the process by which governments function. There is no alternative method available. We can't just join hands and sing. Elected representatives of citizens need to meet exchange ideas and goals, and reach compromise solutions. There have always been arguments among competing factions. We have mechanisms to deal with the arguments and resolve them (see U.S. Constitution and Federalist Papers #10 - James Madison).

    Anti-democratic ideas in the "plan."
    Creation of a "World Energy Authority" is probably the worst part of this "plan." The people of the world have never shown any wish to give up their control of their own countries to a world government or anything approaching a world government. A modern democratic republic with a government of elected officials and legislators is imperfect, but in a contest for "best form of government" it is far ahead of whatever is in second place.

    I suggest that the "plan" is really just a conservative stalking horse that provides an excuse to do nothing. The author of the plan knows that it would never be adopted, and should not be adopted, but it provides a good talking point -- "Those liberals want to enslave you to a world government."
    No. We don't want a world government any more than the conservatives do.
    • 5
    • Comment
  • Pindar answered 3 years ago
    Sounds a bit like you want the beginnings of a one world government or a 'new world order'.
    • 1
    • Comment
  • MIKE L answered 3 years ago
    That is a dream world . In a another World people have been brainwashed to
    believe that CO2 is bad and changes the climate.
    • 3
    • Comment
  • Sign In 

    to add your answer

Who is following this question?

    Member Since:
    Points: Points: Level
    Total Answers:
    Points this week: