When is Enough ,Enough?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

I don't think any living person wants to destroy the world. However if you're a person or a business whose profit is held back by an environmental regulation, no matter how good it is, you'd definitely like to see that regulation removed so you can make more money.

And that's where sane discussions ought to be able to had about regulatory oversight. But again, that's not the discussion that is usually had by us. Even in this thread mentioning cancelling of the fuel standards by Trump, it is greeted with a cry that the grandchildren will not have a safe world, or we must trust the scientists, even when reasonable (imo) stats show that those standards have a near negligible effect on the world wide output (.2Gt vs 36Gt or 1/2 of 1% of the total).

I don't know the solution, because honestly when you are greeted by the world will die, or your just ignorant, comments it's hard to try to continue the debate about where reasonable standards should be.

IF we could have zero emissions and not affect liberty, economic growth, and individual choice, I would be all for it, but life IS tradeoffs. Where does one end and the other begin. If you only look at SCIENCE, you miss the need for individual and corporate growth. If you only look at corporate growth you miss the need for SCIENCE.

(by the way, the SCIENCE is a nod to Penguins of Madagascar, and Kowalski in particular)