As the developed nations already have a financial set of problems, it should be relatively easy to manipulate some progress towards less carbon dioxide production without trying to squeeze out
false economic arguments.
Not exact matches
Instead, we're confronted with
arguments framed as a hard,
false choice between sound
economic policies and social programs, between fiscal realities and compassionate acts.
If that's the case, then the
economic arguments — that we should wait «until the science is settled» because the application of a discount rate makes solving AGW cheaper in the future, and we can't afford the
economic dislocation if we act now — are
false.
Brian Dodges «If that's the case, then the
economic arguments — that we should wait «until the science is settled» because the application of a discount rate makes solving AGW cheaper in the future, and we can't afford the
economic dislocation if we act now — are
false.
It is not enough for proponents of climate change policies to simply make counter scientific and
economic «factual»
arguments to the scientific and
economic claims of the climate change policy opponents, advocates for climate policies need to help citizens understand what interests are responsible for the disinformation that is the basis for the
false arguments made by opponents of climate change policies, why the tactics used the opponents of climate change policies are morally reprehensible, and why the
arguments of those opposing climate change policies will continue to create huge injustices and immense suffering in the world.