So, although I’m not an expert in such things, I’m going to weigh in with my opinion on global warming. As you’ve probably guessed, this is a Personal Development blog, so take what I have to say on global warming with a pinch of salt, I’m not qualified to comment on such things, BUT what I will give you, is my honest, thought out opinion.
You’ll be free to make your own mind up about what I’m saying, and whether you agree or not. It’s a subject which has many of us discussing the implications and consequences etc, but I’m hopefully going to make it very simple for you here.
So, global warming. It’s the idea that the earth is slowly heating up, which would eventually cause the ice caps to melt and that would in turn cause massive destruction and devastation on the planet.
The debate rages about whether or not we should do anything, and also if we do act, to what degree should we act. That is the debate summed up, so what can we make of all this? Oh, by the way, part of the debate is people saying that ‘it’s not really happening’. Well, this graph would say otherwise..
The global warming debate – We have two options
We can either act, or not act. For the purposes of this post, ‘act’ means a noticeable and substantial action in the direction of combating global warming. We can either do something, or just ignore it. So to really get a picture of the situation we’re in, it’s important to understand the ‘worst case scenarios’ associated with each possibility. Let’s explain these now..
The worst case scenario with global warming
If we act >> We could spend lots of money on the action which could cause us to go into a worse recession.
Compared to..
If we don’t act >> The world as we know it could.. end?
At this point, surely you can see the reason there shouldn’t really be a debate about whether or not to act in the first place. Let’s examine this a bit further.
If we act, and there ISN’T any more global warming, or at least, it’s nowhere near as bad as the experts think, and it just doesn’t get ‘that bad’, then worst case, we’ve spent a load of money on trying to act such as advertising, promoting awareness of global warming, informing people, imposing new regulations etc with things like emissions, waste etc..
That’s the worst case. We spend a lot of money on that stuff, and it ‘could’ never happen. This could lead to a worse recession, which is terrible because money is ‘soooo important’ to our survival as a species..
But what happens if global warming DOES get worse, and it IS ‘as bad’ as people think it’s going to be? Well, how about this for starters..
1: Global natural disasters such as Tornadoes, Tsunamis, Earthquakes on a huge scale, and more..
2: Mass anarchy as people fight for scare food and drink
3: The political and ‘law’ of the world collapses as people fight for survival
4: Thousands of miles of coastlines/massive cities underwater
5: Billions of pounds worth of damage done by flooding, earthquakes etc
Looking at that list, an economic recession seems like a fairytale dreamland in comparison. But that’s the shocking thing, people are actually saying ‘not to act on global warming’ because we could go into recession.
It won’t come as a shock that we’re already in recession, regardless of action on global warming. The economy is really the least of our concerns when things like, I don’t know.. The end of the modern world are possible?
So we have two options, but only one is the right one
It comes down to whether we act on it, or don’t. There shouldn’t even be a debate, because when you look at both scenarios, we MUST eliminate the greater of two evils.
It’s the only responsible thing. Sure, we might be wrong. Global warming might just be a ‘rumor’ or blown out of proportion and it won’t ever get that bad, but what if it does?
When faced with the choice between..
A – A possible economic recession
Or..
B – The end of the world as we know it, massive deaths and damage, anarchy, earthquakes etc
I know what I’d choose. It’s just difficult to believe there’s really a debate going on about this. A debate.. wasting time deciding whether to act, when the responsible choice seems obvious. Am I wrong about this? Do you agree with me? Let me know on the Facebook page, and please share with your friends etc.. See what they think.