> Why don't the governments reduce their carbon footprint if it is so important? Better safe than sorry?

Why don't the governments reduce their carbon footprint if it is so important? Better safe than sorry?

Posted at: 2015-03-12 
"Better safe than sorry." That seems to be the mantra from alarmists. In fact, you are safer by not squandering your wealth in weird schemes to protect you from non-existent threats. It isn't safe to throw your money at snakeoil salesmen who tell you the world will end if you don't give them your money and freedom. In fact that is a way to guarantee you will be much worse off.

The modern left is akin to the caste societies in Europe. They see themselves as the elite and everyone else as the peasants. They of course are the only ones qualified or smart enough to chose what is best for the ignorant peasant class.

oh, I see. So you know the truth, you're just scared of action in case it means you lose out of something that you're attached to.

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable." all that is true. Although vegetarianism is increasing, there actually are people that can't contemplate not eating meat regularly! Never mind that for most people regular meat was not even a thing until the 1950's at least, nevertheless people will scream about "traditions" and "ways of life" etc.

If population keeps increasing (and it must - our economic system is dependent on economic growth and to counter the aging population crisis we must keep increasing our population until someone comes up with a new system) and the prevalence of middle-class continues to increase worldwide it is a disaster.

The UN might have called some aspects of middle-class living "unsustainable" (some far worse than others) but that's nothing compared to what they've said about the richest 400 people on Earth, and have been scathing that they have more money, resources and wealth than the poorest 1 billion people.

why do you think there's such a highly funded attack on reality and massively funded attacks on clean technology?

It could start by closing Depts. of Energy , Education , Commerce , Pentagon , EPA , IRS , Aguculture.

Cut Congress pay till they pay off debt .

I have always wondered why we have such a huge overabundance of administration, the phrase another day at the office, always made me think why not say another day at the factory /farm (somewhere where something is produced, not just paperwork) the problem is admin protects itself it grows and as it makes the decisions, it is not going to decide to cut itself, all countries generally have this huge population of pen pushers, and too few producers.

Much too much beaurocratic government making stupid trivial decisions, because they have no real work to do.

If governments are serious about fighting global warming, they must lead by example.

Governments would go bankrupt if they did.

"You have deniers and you have those that acknowledge the reality.

Why not make an effort to reduce your carbon use irrespective of your position? That way, no matter who is right or wrong, the weather disaster won't happen.

Better safe than sorry."

This was a quote by a naive questioner named Filmmaker. This is a feeble attempt to throw guilt on the public.

Quote by Maurice Strong, a wealthy elitist and primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer: "Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable."

You can see that it is the common person that must be punished. Not the elite or governments.