To: US Chamber of Commerce and Bill Cain, US Chamber of Commerce and CNN contributer
Why is it better to wait for human physiology to adjust to climate change than to adjust our use ...
Ask Bill Cain to bring an explanation of the US Chamber of Commerce's recommendation that the way to deal with climate change is to do nothing now and wait for the human physiology to adjust to the environmental changes that result. Why is that a better line of action than to adjust the reliance of people, government and businesses in the United States on fossil fuels?
Why is this important?
Republicans Mark Folay and Will Cain spoke on the Bill Mahr Show recently along with Bill McKibbin, environmentalist, about what to do about global warming. Bill McKibbin pointed to scientists' conclusions about the changes that have begun to happen and will escalate if we continue to use fossil fuels at the rate we currently do. He was in favor of adjusting our use of fossil fuels. But the Republicans supported the US Chamber of Commerce's point of view that there is no need to adjust our use of fossil fuel use because the human physiology will adjust to the new conditions on earth when it needs to. I'd like these two Republicans to come back on the show with a statement from the Chamber of Commerce to explain why they feel that it is better to rely on their prediction that the human physiology will adjust to decreased oxygen in the atmosphere, the disappearance of clean water and air, reduced ability to grow crops in the earth, increased hurricanes, tornadoes, draughts, high temperatures, extreme weather conditions in all seasons, and so on. Who does it benefit to wait for the human physiology to adjust to these changes, evidently through a survival of the fittest process? Why do they prefer to hasten these changes, and their predicted physiological adjustment of the human species? Why is this better than adjusting use of fossil fuels? What's the preference based on?