Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommysalami
Decisions are (or should be) made based on risk.
Risk = probability*consequence
Accepting that neither side of this debate knows for certain whether climate change is man-made, we then evaluate the risk and act on that. And the risk is simply much greater if we don't act, in my opinion. It's a fallacy to argue that because we can't prove our assumptions, the best action is to do nothing.
|
There are other options within the middle-ground between doing nothing and changing the entire infrastructural landscape and energy source for billions of people
in case it might help.
Why is it so many climate protagonists only seem to consider a binary all or nothing choice?