earth risk management

The debate about Global Warming / Global Climate Change is something we're all familiar with. Greg Craven, a 38 year old teacher in the U.S. has made some short videos posted on YouTube that make a compelling argument: the risk of doing nothing is too great.
Does it really matter whether which scientists or policy makers are right? Do we need to find a solution to decided whether or not we should take efforts to protect the environment? In Los Angeles, for example, it seems contradictory for parents to take such huge efforts to find the RIGHT car seat. They're concerned about the safety of their child riding in the automobile. The contradiction begins when its a gas guzzling vehicle that spews out a bunch of toxic fumes for all those around us. Another contradiction? People focused on banning smoking becuase of the effects of second-hand smoke while burning up a whole lot of fuel and/or refusing to recycle etc etc etc.
I think a lot of us think in terms of all or nothing. Many countries in the world rely on mid-east oil. Why not reduce emmissions in vehicles...transport trucks, trains, buses, vehicles... What's the negative side of the argument? Greater cost. I heard the same argument about organic food back in the day. I decided to start eating mostly organic food, whole foods, natural foods - limiting my exposure to and use of chemicals in my food chain. What's wrong with that? Don't you think there is a possibility that lowered chemical use would be good for all of us? I'm not saying we need to eliminate all chemicals - some medicines are life saving, some chemicals make water drinkable, some chemicals make lifesaving protective clothing for people like fireman. But if we don't NEED to use the chemicals...why take the risk? Economics will work out the costs of using more natural products....as supply rises in many cases, the cost of distribution becomes more efficient and these products become more affordable for all.
ciao for now

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg