Climate Change Argument The Yin And The Yang

The Yin
Those against belief in climate change and all it applies are dead set against taking any measures for what they consider voodoo science. These are on the side any changes in the earth's climate would have happened anyway-- without or without man's influence. Because neither side is willing it has become a political football.

The Yang
I'd rather take another approach. Let's say supporters of climate change are wrong. What's the worse that could happen if we took on global warming?* We'd all breath cleaner air.
* Tons of environmental engineering jobs would be created.
* Dozens of new alternative energy manufacturing jobs would follow.
* New technologies could be researched & advanced.

So in essence we have one group of people (The Yin) who could be wrong placing us in peril. The other a group of people (The Yang) who by getting their way would cause no harm if they were wrong.

Some would argue against taking measures because it would be economically negative. History has proven with each advancement in technology greater good became of it both on economic and job levels. Not for everyone, but overall it most certainly did.



Some Examples
Airlines replaced passenger trains as the preferred method for long distance travel. As a result the airline industry became a giant economic driver. When airlines replaced most of the train passenger traffic far more jobs were created then lost. Airlines not only require flight crews but so too a whole host of airport jobs in addition to those who manufacture, maintain & further advance their design.

The same would apply to the change over to alternative energies. Indeed while jobs would be (and are being) lost in the coal industry a whole crop of new jobs are springing forth. Jobs in manufacturing, installation and design. There are several economic advantages beyond those. By the use of solar and wind driven energies consumers will pay less then they do now for fossil fuels used in our nation's generators. These require drilling, fracking and mining for radioactive materials to drive them. All of which are more polluting before they are even used. Many of which these scarred sites having the need of money for superfund cleanups. Or drilling in our oceans where, after a accident, they can never be restored. Some even claimed to create earthquakes. Yeah they too create lots of jobs, but I don't think that's the kind of jobs we want. Ones which place not only the oceans and land at risk but workers too.

In ConclusionImagine 90 years ago if people argued to maintain things as they always were over fears of job loses and economic drivers at the time. Why we'd all be riding around for days on dirty steam engines and horses to get where we needed to go. We'd still have to shovel our dirty coal furnaces in the basement. We'd certainly have no highly efficient LED or fluorescent bulbs, instead still be lighting our kerosene lamps. All of which are a hellva lot dirtier and polluting then what we have now.

This whole issue boils down to two groups of people. Those who refuse to progress and those who do not. When we consider it in this way global warming shouldn't even be a consideration. So kids, do we move forward or not?