Quote:
Originally Posted by Ennewi
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
And certain places that were previously inhabitable would be uninhabitable, but this ignores the obvious fact that animals migrate.
When the pandemic first reached the U.S. in NYC, the high class moved upstate or to neighboring cities in the tri-state area. It was virtually empty according to a few people I know who were down there at the time, emptier than after 9/11. Wildfires and floods would cause more of the same sudden shifts in population, placing more demand on hospitals, grocery stores, etc. And real estate would take a hit.
All of that would make gerrymandering exceedingly difficult (not to mention conducting a census) so there's some silver-lining. No one who says it's a nonissue lives next to power plants because no one wants to breathe in smog. Ignoring the debate, whether there are or aren't any drastic natural repercussions in the future, there's no question that our proliferation of waste is more than just an eyesore.
|
Sure I'm certainly not saying it's fake or that we shouldn't take certain measures to live a cleaner existence, but it tends to be a bougie pet topic for the most well to do (I'm looking at you Gretta). If you're living in africa and burning cow shit to survive, you really don't care about 0.4% reduction of carbon emissions. The poor of the world depend heavily on fossil fuels. Green technology would be great to have widespread, but there are drastic downsides that activists really don't like to acknowledge, and they need to grapple with them if they want to actually make meaningful changes.