To Do or Not to Do, That Is NOT the Question

I came across this video clip while reading the latest post on Colin Beaven's No Impact Man blog. It's an interesting argument and I'd love to hear what all of you out there think.

Comments

[http://www.amerisleep.com]

Very informative and helpful. I was searching for this information but there are very limited resources. Thank you for providing this information.

[Finance Dissertation]

Very informative and helpful. I was searching for this information but there are very limited resources. Thank you for providing this information.

[Paula Flack]

This is a very simplified argument but he makes good points.
I don't agree with his logic in Column A/False. People are very resourceful. Once a problem is identified there are several solutions available almost imediately. Look how quickly pollluted rivers and lakes were cleaned up. In 20 years we went from flammable to clear healthy water. Someone had to be making money on the cleanup. New companies popped up to clean up the water. New positions were created in the public and private sector to monitor the effluent from entities using the water and water recreation increased, thus increasing profits for companies involved in recreation.

Lots of companys are profitting by marketing "organic, sustainable and green" products. I even have to pay for my once free organic horse poop! The money may shift from one company to another but someone will be profitting.

So back to the simplistic version of climate change, we'd have only happy faces in column A.