I was watching an iq squared debate the other day, and this happened
> Moderator: Panelist A, you have supported Trump and green efforts in the past, so how do you feel about Trump calling climate change a hoax?
> Panelist A: Well, I'm actually a lot more of a climate skeptic than my resume might lead people to believe. However, I think there are a lot of good reasons to be green despite climate change, e.g. building sustainable energy, promoting biodiversity, etc., so I'm still a green activist. Being green doesn't imply belief in climate change.
At this point the crowd is booing
>Panelist B: That's absurd, of course being green implies supporting climate change.
And the subsequent consensus of the panelists seemed to be that the only good reason to be green was for climate change. Since I have similar opinions to the former panelist, I was wondering if this was a common belief. Is fear of the apocalypse the only good reason to be green?
>>8571081
Earth is a tetrahedron
pls respond
>>8571335
here's your response
keep up a good job
>>8571081
>Is fear of the apocalypse the only good reason to be green?
No. And I agree, being green does not require belief in GW, although I think it's pretty far beyond speculation that it's real and anthropomorphic, and it's irresponsibly cavalier to dismiss our obligation to preserve the only viable habitat we have in the universe.
That said, other reasons are biological impact on being green: trying to rid the oceans (and therefore also food chain) of the nutrient-lacking plastic that animals fill up on and then die of starvation. Or the horrible cesspools classically regarded as "rivers" in some shit hole areas of the world. Or killing of bees, diminishing the pollination of crops and ambient plants.
There's a lot more to natural systems than what we humans interact with directly.
>>8571291
Thanks for this, I've gotten my fix and have no reason to participate in this thread