**Hypothetical question**
If there was a world-wide vote on the response to global warming and it went the other way to what you wanted, would you go with it, or keep campaigning in whatever form?
To clarify: there's the science of global warming (natural or man-made, benign or devastating) and then there'e the political question of what we do in response (adaptation / mitigation / prevention / etc). For instance: Someone might doubt it was man-made, but conclude it's better to be on the safe side as they saw it, on the other hand, someone might absolutely believe it, but conclude that adaptation was the logical response now.
So imagine there was a vote which essentially asked:
"Do you think we should do everything in our power to lower carbon dioxide emissions, even if that has massive implications, to try and prevent serious global warming, or do you think we should continue as we are and just adapt as changes happen (or not happen) as the case may be?"
Imagine a clear majority voted AGAINST the position you hold. Would you accept the majority vote, or would you keep campaigning. And if you would keep campaigning, on what grounds (personal liberty, rights of future generations, self-determination ,planetary rights, etc)?
.
If there was a world-wide vote on the response to global warming and it went the other way to what you wanted, would you go with it, or keep campaigning in whatever form?
To clarify: there's the science of global warming (natural or man-made, benign or devastating) and then there'e the political question of what we do in response (adaptation / mitigation / prevention / etc). For instance: Someone might doubt it was man-made, but conclude it's better to be on the safe side as they saw it, on the other hand, someone might absolutely believe it, but conclude that adaptation was the logical response now.
So imagine there was a vote which essentially asked:
"Do you think we should do everything in our power to lower carbon dioxide emissions, even if that has massive implications, to try and prevent serious global warming, or do you think we should continue as we are and just adapt as changes happen (or not happen) as the case may be?"
Imagine a clear majority voted AGAINST the position you hold. Would you accept the majority vote, or would you keep campaigning. And if you would keep campaigning, on what grounds (personal liberty, rights of future generations, self-determination ,planetary rights, etc)?
.