Economics, Politics and Climate Change
- This topic has 6 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Following is a discussion on the page titled: Economics, Politics and Climate Change.
Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!I think tax credits is what concerns most workers or the need to use food banks. Climate change doesn't seem important when you live in poverty. Perhaps that is why we remain small
Vin wrote:Climate change doesn't seem important when you live in poverty.Those who are going to suffer the most from climate change are also those in the most poorest and undeveloped countries. Like the article says it is the least powerful that will suffer.
Vin wrote:I think tax credits is what concerns most workers or the need to use food banks.Most workers? Most workers are not on tax credits or have to go to food banks. I don't know what the exact figure is but it won't be much above 10%. Our appeal must be to a much broader section of the working class and on a wider basis than the fact that some members of the working class are on or below the "poverty line". What about those who are not?
This article, and the editorial, take the view that scientists generally agree that climate change is mostly caused by humans (=capitalists).Can someone point me to some references? I ask because there is a discussion on another forum I belong to which has a number of people saying they agree global warming is happening but don't think there's enough evidence that it's caused by human activity. So basically they don't care. (Some of them think we're actually on the verge of an ice age.)I'm not looking for mere assertions, but some sources for the scientists' views.
Rod,no one seriously disputes the Greenhouse effect, so all we have to demonstrate is that human activity has increased output of greenhouse gasses. Thus:http://climatechangeconnection.org/emissions/world-ghg-emissions-by-source/(see chart). The debate is over the climate models and the speed of change and the nature of its impact.So, the simple question: we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we know that human caused emissions of CO2 (and other gasses) has increased masively over the past 200 years, how can it not have had an impact?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.