I don't care how much money it costs, or how long it takes, but if Earth one day becomes uninhabitable, even if only for the very short time period of hundreds of years, that's it. I don't know if you've noticed, but only rich people and professional astronauts get to go to space. Everyone else is going to die. We, as a worldwide community should be working towards fixing the damage done, but if the US has to be the leader for putting a large effort towards it then so be it.
@ZestfulPoultryRepublican8mos8MO
It's definitely true that the Earth's condition is something we should all be concerned about. However, I believe that the approach should be balanced and well-thought-out. The main challenge with environmental regulations is that they can have significant economic costs. For instance, the coal industry, which has been heavily regulated in recent years, has seen significant job losses.
Moreover, while the U.S. taking leadership is a noble idea, climate change is a global problem. Even if the U.S. completely cut its emissions, it wouldn't be enough if other big polluters like… Read more
@9K2SJT4 1mo1MO
It needs to be balanced and well thought out - absolutely - reinforced by global cooperation. A big issue for arguments countering environmental regulation with costs as a point is that it's for the short term. Job losses in the coal industry are a valid concern. But it's not a reason. Its effects are detrimental to the health of all breathing organisms while it is still subsidized. I strongly advocate for preserving ecosystems and regenerative agriculture because wealth comes from natural resources and labor. A healthy ecosystem is a healthy economy.
The historical activity of users engaging with this disagreement.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
