The problem is, while they are doing everything in their power to discredit the majority opinion, potentially irreversable damage continues. Why not error on the side of caution in a matter so serious?
Wouldn't caution be fully investigating the science before tanking the economy and hurting people?
And it isn't about discrediting opinions, it is about the search for truth.
erring on the side of caution would be very hard to do in this case. Like 100's of billions of dollars, a sizeable increase in the price of commodities, trade restrictions that would likely hurt the poor the most, etc. If we really want to protect the environment from our pollution, it needs to be framed in a discussion that is much less existential and abstract. Like pollution=cancer, or pollution hurts land prices, etc etc. Needs to be something tangible, and something that people can truly take responsibility for.
Economies recover, and the transion could certainly be gradual. Besides, producing more efficiently (producing less pollution or waste) would help the company in the long run anyway. I agree, however, that framing the argument in the terms of pollution = cancer, etc. might be a better way of bringing about change more rapidly (a la Erin Brockovich). The means don't really matter so long as the ends are a healthier environment overall.
Commenting by HaloScan
