There are lots of arguments in favor of environmental protections even if someone thinks CO2 is not an issue. Think smog over major cities, or rivers being too polluted to swim in, or oil spills. You can’t eat the fish you catch in many water bodies because of industrial contamination with heavy metals and PCBs. Mine tailings leach chemicals out into lakes and rivers. This is all very visible stuff that cannot be waved away with vague doubts.
You can counter the “drill baby drill” people by pointing out that using up our oil first makes us dependent on other countries in the future. Given that the world has a finite supply of oil, it’s smart to keep ours in the ground as much as possible. Hold on to that domestic oil as a future “strategic reserve,” and focus on developing renewables for our daily energy needs.
I agree with you but you seem to misunderstand me. I tried to express that for a lot of people the CO2 issue is the one that they really want to focus on, due to the impact. The arguments for reducing CO2 are almost entirely long term issues and a lot of people think they won’t experience it anyway as they die beforehand, making a selfish argument difficult. Especially if they are supposed to be simple punchline.
There are lots of arguments in favor of environmental protections even if someone thinks CO2 is not an issue. Think smog over major cities, or rivers being too polluted to swim in, or oil spills. You can’t eat the fish you catch in many water bodies because of industrial contamination with heavy metals and PCBs. Mine tailings leach chemicals out into lakes and rivers. This is all very visible stuff that cannot be waved away with vague doubts.
You can counter the “drill baby drill” people by pointing out that using up our oil first makes us dependent on other countries in the future. Given that the world has a finite supply of oil, it’s smart to keep ours in the ground as much as possible. Hold on to that domestic oil as a future “strategic reserve,” and focus on developing renewables for our daily energy needs.
I agree with you but you seem to misunderstand me. I tried to express that for a lot of people the CO2 issue is the one that they really want to focus on, due to the impact. The arguments for reducing CO2 are almost entirely long term issues and a lot of people think they won’t experience it anyway as they die beforehand, making a selfish argument difficult. Especially if they are supposed to be simple punchline.
For non-co2 issues, it is easy.