4 Questions You Probably Won’t Hear at CNN’s Climate Crisis Town Hall
Though questions will come from members of the audience, CNN’s description of the event offers some indication of what questions viewers can expect.
Even if you believe the worst case predictions regarding climate change, what to do about it is not as clear cut as some would suggest. The narrative seems to be that we need carbon taxation and massive government intervention. But is this really a wise approach?
Even accepting the worst case predictions, there are other possible solutions that would have far fewer negative effects. Even planting more trees is a potential solution. As this article points out, planting enough trees (equivalent to covering North America) would reduce CO2 by 25%. While that is a huge undertaking, it would still have less of an impact on the economy and our daily lives than what has thus far been suggested and probably far more effective.
Then there's the fact that large quantities of fossil fuels are still absolutely needed for things like heat in the winter. There is no quick solution that will translate that to electric power.
There are plenty of other issues that should be addressed before embarking on some mammoth undertaking to force a change in fossil fuel usage or we risk doing far more harm than good. While I'm not one who believes that climate change is some kind of hoax, I do think that those politicians that are advocating the loudest for the kind of changes that have been suggested (CO2 taxes, etc.) have ulterior motives. A case of not letting a good (potential) crisis go to waste. It's all bout the science up until they start talking about implementing solutions. Why is that? Where is the science that tells us that any of the changes suggested by politicians would actually decrease CO2 output enough to matter?
Sponsored ( Powered by dclick )
