Quote:
Originally Posted by Impureclient
|
I never really understood these articles or this line of reason. It is almost like the author is confusing the difference between war profiteering and the existence of a war, or worse, he seems to not understand that a war costs money. In the same way, if we identified a threat and preventing that threat costs money then there will be funding. There could be an asteroid barreling down on the planet, and this guy would think scientists are out to make a fortune on the lucrative business of government grants, while lamenting how the government is wasting money on a digging team and rocket from NASA.
Look, start with the premise that climate change is real and is a threat to our existence then what would you expect to see? Would it make sense that the government would invest more in understanding the threat? Would it make sense that the government would invest in ways to reduce the threat? Would it make sense that some industries would be created and other industries, that are causing harm, would be phased out? This is the same playbook for any problem needing to be solved from a war to this pandemic, or to use one of the article's examples, to wanting to go to the moon. For example, when we began learning that smoking caused cancer, we began taxing nicotine; we removed it from advertisements on TV; we increased spending in research on emerging alternatives like vaping; we learned 2nd hand smoke was bad and passed regulations prohibiting smoking indoors; we invested in smoking avoidance programs; we created more programs to help addicts quit. Follow the money. Clearly scientists just wanted grants to get rich because scientists are out to be rich, and governments just wanted to tax cigarette companies and buyers to better abuse their power and pad their pockets.
Are you trying to say all shifts in money are inherently bad?