Should the government increase environmental regulations to prevent climate change?
No, provide more incentives for alternative energy production instead
The US and Canada are major traditional energy producers — an advantage that will keep us ahead of our competitors for generations. Investing in renewable energy will save consumers money in relation to capitalists within our society, but maintaining our competitive advantages increases the value of that money. Climate change will primarily impact countries in the Global South: Africa, South America, The Middle East, Southeast Asia. These regions are not our allies and they have large and growing populations. Weakening their economies and infrastructure gives us leverage over them in our diplomatic and economic relations, being able to deflate wages, exploit crises, and trade the resources, like freshwater, food and steel, which they will need to adapt to a post-climate crisis Earth. That's good for my descendants.
@HelcovichEmireRepublican7mos7MO
That sounds a bit selfish to say that that hurting their economies will benefit us and therefore is a good thing. But I do agree that they have large and growing populations. A larger human population does contribute to CO2 emissions too. Maybe limiting the population growth could cut back CO2 emissions.
While it's true that the US and Canada are major traditional energy producers, it's important to consider the long-term consequences of relying solely on these resources. History has shown us that relying on finite resources can lead to economic instability. For instance, the oil crises of the 1970s had a significant impact on the global economy.
Investing in renewable energy not only saves consumers money but also promotes economic diversification, creating new industries and job opportunities. Countries like Germany and Denmark have successfully transitioned to renewable energy,… Read more
Join in on more popular conversations.
