This is something I've wondered about for a long time, unfortunately since I suck as a writer I probably won't express what I feel but I'll give it a try.
This all has to do with climate change, making money, survival and people's ignorance of what is happening. Global climate change is happening and man is causing this climate change with the emission of green house gasses into the atmosphere. This is not an opinion it is the consensus of 97% of the scientists that have been studying this problem for decades. This problem has been around for years and so has the solution to this problem. This is the major problem facing humanity today. Not Ebola in Africa or the crisis in Gaza or in the Ukraine, not women, gay or civil rights , not funding for the military. Pick your problem, while it is important to you and might directly effect you at this present moment and it maybe your most important issue at this time it is sitting on top of the big problem,. That is man's negative impact on the climate of this planet. All solutions to problems should bear this in mind. Climate change is a problem that needs humanities attention front and center now. It is not a rich versus poor problem, a black versus white problem a democracy versus a totalitarian problem it is a problem that effects all of humanity. The question is are we as intelligent beings up to the task of solving this problem? It is a problem that effects are encroaching everyones life and needs to be addressed in thoughtful ways, not by who is going to make money out of it.
In the US it is nearing 2014 elections and interesting climate change issues are important in at least two Senate seats. In Kentucky a coal producing state both the democratic and republican candidates say they are pro-coal. Of course they want to be elected. In Louisiana we have an incumbent democratic Senator who is is pro Keystone XL pipeline, (I'm guessing her republican opponent is also). Coal production and the pipeline are both against mankind's interest in stopping climate change yet candidates are for projects that will increase the use of fossil fuels. They want to get elected since both their states, especially Louisiana's economies are heavily fossil fuel dependent. Real leadership would admit that using fossil fuels are not in humankind's interest and that we as human's should be doing doing everything possible to get away from fossil fuels and move towards renewable fuels. Unfortunately, that stand would cost either of those two the election in these close races. As usual it is made to come down to money and jobs. But the question should be money and jobs for who?
Humans want sources of reliable energy. How do we produce this energy and who makes the money? Capitalism would say who can deliver the energy the cheapest will win. Who can sell you that energy for the lowest price?.How do you really set the price? What is its real price over time, not just its cost today? What is its price in future health effects? What is its price in affecting global climate change? How do you put a price on the morals and ethics of how the energy is produced in all the steps to obtain it? As I guess business type people say "what is the bottom line?" What is the real bottom line for all of humanity not just the off shore accounts of wealthy investors?
Something like cap and trade is a start in order to reduce our dependence on the use of fossil fuels. Those old enough to remember the energy crisis of the early 1970's remember talk about reducing our dependency on fossil fuels. It didn't happen I'm sure journal articles, PhD dissertations and books have been written on why this didn't happen. Forty years from now do we want the same said about our inaction in the early 21st century to stop the emission of green house gases? Or do we want the future to say that this was the time when action was taken that reduced and eliminated the human use of fossil fuels and replaced it with environmentally clean sources of energy?.