Well, to get this back on topic. Are there fear-mongers out there who are using the potential crisis to benefit themselves? Obviously. There always are. Should we disregard that entire side of the debate because a very vocal minority is behaving poorly? No. Attack the argument, not the argumenter.
As for carbon credits. I'm not sure which type you mean. If you mean, someone paying a company to plant X number of trees to offset their car driving, or whatever. I think it's more for their peace of mind rather than any actual benefit, but the benefit still exists. Even if nothing else, we get more trees, which are good.
If you mean the polluting companies buying credits from companies that pollute less. I think this is a good idea. The cap and trade system will benefit the companies that pollute less, force major offenders to reduce their pollution, and generally reduce pollution as the number of credits gets reduced.
Recycling is BIG business started off of a bald faced lie.
I don't know how you mean this. Recycling programs in my area are being reduced or eliminated all otgether because they LOSE money in the endeavor. The only thing that makes money for recyclers is aluminum. It's slowly trending towards the other end, where recycling can bring in a profit, but it's a slow march, and frankly, I will applaud the moment it becomes not only environmental but also economical to recycle. I fully admit that the hysteria of the 80s and 90s was perpetrated by a lie, but again, does that make the logic behind it now any less valid?
I agree that emissions should be controlled and monitored. I agree that it is good practice to conserve energy. I agree that it could be possible that global warming is directly attributed to mankind's lax attitude. What I don't agree with is the hysteria-induced mania, the fear mongering, the exaggerations, the guilt trips, and the outright lies.
Very true. Guilt-trips and lies are counterproductive and serve only to discredit a person's argument. The hysteria problem is one of a lack of evidence, as you suggest, but I think I know where it's coming from. If you had evidence that some time in the next 100 years, your body would be ripped apart via some new force. (Let's forget, for the sake of the story that you probably wouldn't believe any such prediction.) Would you just sit there and assume the time wouldn't happen until you're dead, or would you seek to find some way of stopping it, perhaps even hysterically, in case it comes to pass next Thursday?
People are getting hysterical because we think there could be a point at which it becomes impossible for us to do anything about the warming, but we're not exactly sure when that point is. We think we have a chance at reversing, or at least mitigating the damage until that point is reached, and some evidence, however scant, seems to indicate that tipping point is near. Should we wait until we have more evidence, possibly waiting until it's too late, or should we push ahead and try to do something that is good even outside the GW debate? If some get freaked out and hysterical, it's not that hard to understand.
™ Version 4.2