<p>Is climate change real? Yes, as I commented to another post the question is just how much do we contribute to it and how much does it cost us?</p>
<p>Earlier I read: <a href="https://steemit.com/life/@gavvet/what-will-happen-when-we-run-out-of-fossil-fuels-featuring-infinitor-as-author">What will happen when we run out of fossil fuels?(featuring @infinitor as author)</a></p>
<h3>There's a lot of controversy on whether or not we will run out of fossil fuels by 2050.  </h3>
<p>One thing that has been proven though is that the technology to use fossil fuels and extract fossil fuels is ever evolving and becoming more efficient. So we'll have to see who is right about that in a few years.</p>
<p>The problem we need to focus on is today. There is a lot of overhyped media and demands for immediate change that have negatively impacted many in the form of higher prices, lost jobs, and lower wages. Many countries have regulations that encourage production and manufacturing to move to countries like China which didn't reduce pollution but simply relocated it. </p>
<h3>Wasted money that doesn't positively affect change.</h3>
<p>Government funds are being misused to promote renewable resources that are reported to have high costs and little future impact. I see this as money that is transferred to companies and wasted. </p>
<p>The EPA here in the US has mandates and regulations such as those on dishwasher efficiency that could potentially use more water and more electricity than they will save when dishes have to be rinsed or the washer run twice to produce clean dishes. </p>
<p>The EPA has also shut down businesses on environmental concerns even when doing so has minimal impact if any over the cost of lost income. </p>
<h3>Destroying humankind in the name of saving it.</h3>
<p>What happens if FUD wins in the short term? Lost jobs, lost resources, increased poverty? Imagine China and other countries tomorrow adopting stringent climate regulations. Lost jobs, increased consumer prices, etc. Can you imagine if fossil fuel production was reduced by 50%?</p>
<p><img src="https://www.steemimg.com/images/2016/08/10/apocalypse-1325398_960_7208ce54.md.jpg" /></p>
<p>By trying to change things too rapidly in the short term to &quot;save the planet&quot; we can cause just as much destruction as running out of fossil fuels somewhere in the future. Poverty, famine, and disease will all be a reality for most if this happens. </p>
<p>Where is the balance? We need technology to continue to innovate and find new ways to make renewable resources more efficient and cheaper. People need to be able to live their lives. After all if you save the planet and destroy humankind what's the point? </p>
<p><img src="https://www.steemimg.com/images/2016/08/10/dollar-213619_960_7207e27e.md.jpg" /></p>
<p>Either extreme is the wrong way to go and governments should be finding ways to work with all companies to strike a balance that will ensure humanity and the world continues to exist and thrive. Not just fund their pet projects and corporate backers. </p>
<p>/End rant.. back to work</p>
<p><br /></p>
<p><br /></p>
<p><br /></p>