1. The need to validate ones own choices. After spending money and making a big hoo-ha about solar energy, it’s hard to have to have other people devalue that effort.
Indeed. Especially if they’re wrong.
In the software industry, one might work hard for 6 months coding something to have it invalidated because it’s not needed or something better comes along. But the software developer will fervently defend his work, because he’s not about to let his devotion be invalidated by others.
Funny, I see tendentious rationalization and self-justification for selfishness as an eternal habit of the right-wing pollution & greed lobby.
That isn’t validating their own choices? And a powerful well-funded one?
But I suspect there is segment of self-proclaimed AGWists that, inside, really don’t believe that the extra CO2 is causing the recent warming (you know, the lack of a strong 20th century correlation, and the actual percentage of the atmosphere, sunspot correlation, etc.), but continue to argue for it anyway because it’s “good for the environment”
and/or want to continue their association with their side.
I bet there aren’t, but many people do argue, correctly in my opinion, that the steps to reduce carbon intensity are indeed good for the environment and human health even ignoring any effect on greenhouse warming.
The industry responsible for the worst greenhouse offenses (coal) is correlated with the worst environmental impact, and the worst health impact to producers and consumers—already, today.
The industry responsible with the second worst greenhouse offenses (oil) is correlated with the worst oppression impact and the worst military entanglement and belligerence impact—already, today.
