Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Whether your a believer in diverting resources to solving global warming, an advocate of global warming denial, or believe in global warming but are concerned about proposed methods of solving the problem I am interested in your thoughts on this.

    Given a budget of money, how do you decide what to spend it on? What weighting does a government give for current lives over future lives?

    I have seen answers such as "Why concentrate on one, let's do all of them" which is surely impossible to do given stories of endless charities needing more, families in poverty, and affordable housing.

    It is our economic progression that has allowed us all to attain a higher quality of life, such as lower infant mortality. Scientists and doctors have been able to study and improve their skills by them not having to worry about growing food as farming got more efficient etc.

    It is a fact that you have people dying today that any resources dedicated to solving global warming would solve (the tax profits of a new runway at Heathrow would be very sought after in children's hospitals in Bangladesh) yet the obvious reply is "well everyone will have apocalyptic problems in the future with global warming".

    Where do we draw the line? Should current resources dedicated to medical problems of older people be diverted to solving global warming? Should funding for people with HIV be stopped in favour of global warming? If it's that bad why aren't we throwing everything into it. A few thousand people dying now can't be as bad as the millions that will die in 100 years.

    How do you advocates of government enforced global warming policy decide where the line is? I just can't work out how it could be done.

    Or are we going to have to go backwards - increase poverty, death rates, and disease in favour of prolonging our planet? Or are we happy with our current population in poverty and that all future wealth should go to stopping global warming?

    I just don't see how a government can decide these things. I am wondering if only individuals will be able to solve this problem morally and logically with a strong hand of help from economic progression.

    Whether it exists or not doesn't matter so much if it's your own decision what you do with your money.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    simple answer tax the rich and give to the poor
    In this case tax the rich and make them pay for it
    (Speaking on both a local and global scale)
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ali567149)
    simple answer tax the rich and give to the poor
    In this case tax the rich and make them pay for it
    (Speaking on both a local and global scale)
    No.

    Fixed.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Broken link, ol' boy.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The cost of finding a solution to global warming needn't be so horribly dramatic.

    The primary thing we all have to do as human beings on this planet is to change our lifestyles and be more aware of the environment and our role and the impact we are having on the ecosystem.

    Taxing is but one possible route which we ought to take to combat this global problem.
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.