If that's all you think is being asked to give up, then third world nations, particularly those in Africa, would be first world nations on the cutting edge of modern energy and technology. Instead, they are forced to remain undeveloped in the name of the holy environment, to the detriment of the health and well being of the people living in squalor. Meanwhile, current first world nations are raping their lands for resources that really belong to them. Topic for another debate, I suppose.
No doubt global politics come into play, to the detriment of weaker nations. This shouldn't be surprising, since the kind of exploitation you're talking about predates the climate change issue by centuries. Nonetheless, if the threat of climate change is real, *some* action must be taken; in that case, the political battle should center on the most equitable solutions.
If you look into government sanctioned research (or if you've ever worked in a public sector job related to policy formation and implementation), you'd see that funding comes not only with strings attached, but with an up front conclusion requiring backup.
And privately funded research doesn't?
I'm not a scientist, and I don't spend a lot of time rubbing shoulders with that community. But I regularly attend adult education classes, some of them conducted by top-notch scientists, including a Nobel Prize winner for his work on climate change. Without exception, these people strike me as honest, engaged, and enthusiastic as they share their work in as much detail as an intelligent lay audience can absorb. Of course, it's possible they're all shysters and intellectual whores who have everyone in the room fooled, but I'd need a little more support to find that argument convincing.
Yes, politics and money come into play in scientific research, as they do everywhere else. But if that leads you to a fundamental mistrust of science, I have to ask again: who *do* you believe?
I'd ask for your thoughts on anything governments or government agencies do well. The only thing I can think of is imprisoning citizens of less affluence (if in no other way but sheer volume).
Setting aside our disagreements on whether or not the scientists you trust are legit/honest/dishonest/political operatives/right/wrong/etc., what do you think would be more efficient? Free market solutions or government solutions?
I think it depends what sort of efficiency you're talking about. Private companies can be better at keeping their costs down, though often with a shortsighted disregard for quality or safety, and the profit motive may not lead to any real savings for the consumer. And if we're talking large-scale ventures, like the interstate highway system, or the space program, or Medicare, I do think we've seen the value of the federal government. Of course, you can point to waste and inefficiencies in these and other government undertakings, but I would still maintain they've been largely successful.
Ideally, solutions to the climate change crisis will come from both the public and private sector. On an issue this large, they will have to.
