Be careful with documentaries...they are very biased and show results that they want put across. Have you done any research showing rebutting Inconvenient Truth or Cowsprarcy? Lots of these scientists get paid federal grants and they need to justify their work to continue receiving these grants, so there is incentive to "prove" certain results.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
We should always take into account that documentaries are biased. This doesn't mean that the data lies. The data is often based on official data which is yearly published by the World Resource Institute, a legit source to rely on. I believe that environmental problems are the reality, it's visible, it's measurable, etc. Not just Global Warming, but also fish stocks, rainforest areas and other natural resources.
With Environmental Economics we try to focus on how to make individuals feel responsible for their behaviour and it's still a difficult subject as I've mentioned that environmental problems are not directly visible. I've not been occupied with denying or proving the environmental state we're in. I'm more interested in how we as individuals behave and why we do or do not believe and contribute to sustainability! ;-)
I feel people are going to behave based on economical and political views. Some people just want the cheapest thing on sale and they don't care where it came from (GMO, pasture raised, grain fed). Others want convenience...fast food/microwave meals. Then there are those that want quality and care about things such as organic and free range, and are willing to pay a premium ex Wild Salmon. In terms of Poloitics, I find people on the left side (Democrats/Progressives) tend to care more about climate change. Whatever your cup of tea, I'm all for sustainable farming and preserving wild fish. I just feel the climate stuff is fear mongering and profitable for those who push it. Convenient how their solution is a Carbon tax. AKA...Money