Raymond B. answered • 07/18/22
Math, microeconomics or criminal justice
One view, popular with the Green New Deal is we're saving the planet by ending fossil fuel as soon as possible.
A second opposing view is that as the US converts to EV's and ends reliance on oil, all we're doing is outsourcing oil production to places like the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia, which have little or no environmental standards. End result is more pollution wolrdwide, and a sooner end to the planet. As long as China, India and Mexico continue polluting, at best nothing the US does will have any significant effect to improve worldwide pollution. The Green agenda also helps dictatorships oppress women, children, dissent, LGBT and religious groups, as well as finance terrorism worldwide.
A third view is climate change is a total hoax. In the 1960s the same cabal of scientists claimed we faced a global cooling that would destroy the planet. climate change is a natural cycle, independent of carbon emissions, and existed long ago before any fossil fuels or pollution. These "scientists" work in the public sector where their salary depends on panicking the public into funding their work. A more scientific theory is that climate change is a cycle that follows sunspots. It has a greater statistical correlation. The models used to predict climate change have been untested and never predicted anything that can be verified. It predicts things beyond our lifespan, so it can't be verified. The "hockey stick" prediction was testable and proved the climate alarmists' model false. Once proven wrong, it's time to question the "scientists' motives and credibility. Their model of climate changes assumes a zero interest rate to calculate costs. That's an economics' fallacy. zero interest values the quadrillion year future's costs the same as today's costs. It's ridiculous, a error in calculation that's embarassingly false. IF Al Gore believed his own "Inconvenient Truth" he wouldn't be leaving the biggest carbon footprint of anyone, with his jet setting and personal energy use. IF the rich who claim to believe in global warming, they would move from coastal areas, as they'd anticipate rising sea levels with their property lost going underwater. But coastal home prices are rising, not falling.
A 4th view is that even if man made climate change is very real, technology will solve it. Technology will continue to escalate with new inventions that will solve the pollution problem. Taxing today's generation with carbon taxes is a generational shift in wealth, impoverishing future generations even more. The global change alarmists assume a static technology, which is counterfactual.
IF you just want two opposing views, then lump the last 3 above together as opposed to the 1st view.
but to be fair, check on other posts, who are more into the propaganda the Greens spew endlessly. Even Putin financed Greens in the US, as he knew it would help drive up the price of oil and russian oil profits. Biden is on the take from Putin. among other oil producing countries that hate the US.
there's sure to be a bunch of greens on line, ready to spew Gore's gorey fake predictions that won him a Nobel Peace Prize.
