Green Legislation vs Anti Terror Laws

[Comrade Tickle]

Aren't they both just making sacrifices now, in terms of liberty and resources, in the hope that some unspecified thing isn't going to happen at any time in the future?

[iwpoe]

Originally Posted by Sartorialist

Aren't they both just making sacrifices now, in terms of liberty and resources, in the hope that some unspecified thing isn't going to happen at any time in the future?

Green laws would also be about right now, e.g. 'we prefer a world in which certain types of pollution and certain ways of treating nature are not practiced.'

I mean you can ban destructive mining and deforestation without any "unspecified thing" in the future you're going to prevent. You can just dislike how it makes the world look.

Further, global warning is hardly an "unspecified thing" nor is terrorism. Those are quite specific things.

[ourmodernred]

The United States would be utterly and completely irresponsible were it not to enact legislation to control its carbon emissions.

Climate change is a fact. I have done considerable research on this topic (in part for my work with the government) and the consensus is crystal clear when it comes to how man has contributed to environmental change. Over the next few decades we are going to see many bad events occur more often, and though that is not avoidable by 2100 there will extremely serious consequences that may be mitigated by actions taken now. Climate change is a security threat to the United States and the world, and in many places it will compound current problems to facilitate conflict, the spread of disease and mass migration (which also tends to cause conflict).

What we're almost certainly going to see in the coming decades:

- More extreme forest fires with an expanded forest fire season
- More extreme weather events including hurricanes, cyclones, etc. happening with greater intensity
- Shifting weather patterns, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, that will make droughts and rainy seasons worse.
- the number of water scarce countries going up from around 20 today to 30+ by 2025. (Source: National Intelligence Council - Global Trends 2025, available online if you do a google search)

What is also possible over the horizon:
- Rising water levels, most likely creating environmental migrants in low-lying countries like Bangladesh (and many other places in South East Asia), reducing the food security of the region
- Resource competition and conflict, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa
- For Canada, threats to our sovereignty as states try to use the North-West Passage (Canadian territory) to move goods without our consent

There are countless other consequences, and this isn't only promoted by scientists:

For a document that conservatively summarizes the general scientific view on climate change see
IPCC 4th Report (2007)

For a view from the US military (written by former generals and high ranking officers):
http://securityandclimate.cna.org/report/


You aren't sacrificing liberty when you enact climate change legislation. You're protecting your rights and those of countless people across the world to have a better chance at food and water security. You're trying to stop the extinction of countless species of animals, not least of which will be the huge ecosystems of our world's coral reefs (which may be gone quite soon if we don't take action - and perhaps even if we do). You're sacrificing an unsustainable lifestyle that shifts the burden of climate change problems onto the poorest and weakest people living in Sub-Saharan Africa and in South East Asia.

[ourmodernred]

Wow, I'm glad we have finally passed the period of time where people with intelligence dispute climate change.

[ineedateam1]

Originally Posted by ourmodernred

Wow, I'm glad we have finally passed the period of time where people with intelligence dispute climate change.

Agreed - But my grandpa this its bullpoo - Climate change is a fact.!

[irishamerican]

Max my science teacher would love you