If you could flip a switch......

[newfangle]

So some scientist invents a super-discombobulatrix that is a one-time use deal.
Option A: The device reduces global CO2 output by 67%
Option B: The device brings the entire third and developing worlds to a first world standard of living.

Which option would you pick and why? (yes, you have to pick one, no you can't pick both)

 

[luiz]

B, because I'm not heartless.

 

[Rambuchan]

B: Ditto Luiz (god I am such a sheep! )

 

[Dell19]

Option A seems a bit pointless because the emissions would probably still increase, just from a lower level.

B should be the better option.

 

[Japanrocks12]

B: CO2 kicks too much ass, and developing countries deserve better.

 

[CoolioVonHoolio]

because some third world countries could be really nice, but i dont want to go to them now since their so bad.

 

[Perfection]

Is option B sustainable?

 

[CurtSibling]

Option A, as the increased quality will benefit all.
I focus on all mankind, not just the trendy charity aspects.

More 1st rate nations means more pollution.
And only the Africans can defeat poverty, we can only help them...

..

 

[newfangle]

Oh please Curt. The switch does it all! No charity workers needed. Presto! No poverty.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Actually, I changed my mind because none of these switch musings are feasible.

 

[Elrohir]

B, definently.

 

[Yom]

B, because it would take longer. With more developed nations, that means more people with the technological know-how to reduce global warming (provided B is sustainable, as Perfection says). Secondly, a one time reduction of CO2 doesn't mean that it would keep increasing until it's at the same level again in a few years.

 

[North King]

Queries:

A: Just CO2? What about other greenhouse gasses? Is this a permanent thing?

B: Sustainable? And how do they reach first world standards of living? Does this mean 100% of the population? Are they as polluting as the worst 1st world polluters or the least polluting 1st worlders?

 

[farting bob]

I voted option C: pay the scientist to make a second one.
And cutting Co2 emmisions would be better in the long run, but faced with instantly helping billions of people out of poverty, i dont see how i could say no to that. Of course, as a rsult of option B, Co2 will rise incredibly fast and then the planet will go to hell a bit quicker, but i dont want billions of starving people on my conscience.

 

[Perfection]

Well as I see it, if we can sustain everyone at a high standard of living then we somehow must avoid a lot of the problems that global warming has the potental for. Thus global warming is either defeated in the process or we can live with it confortably. Either way it works for me.

I can always have my cake and eat it too.

 

[Louis XXIV]

So some scientist invents a super-discombobulatrix that is a one-time use deal.
Option A: The device reduces global CO2 output by 67%
Option B: The device brings the entire third and developing worlds to a first world standard of living.

Which option would you pick and why? (yes, you have to pick one, no you can't pick both)

B, since it directly effects people right now to a greater effect. I'll have to tollerate heat increases down the road. Plus, there are other environmental factors that could kill us besides CO2 emissions

 

[JoeM]

Surely you would hold the biggest eBay auction of all time, selling your choice to the highest bidder...?

 

[Xen]

A)Because I'm cold, heartless, and care about the planet.

 

[Shadylookin]

option A. So people will stop complaining about kyoto that wasn't going to solve global warming anyway. Averting global catastrophy that will effect everyone(me included) seems like a better choice than bring everyone up to first world standards and increasing the first problem much more significantly. besides if there are no third world countries who will do all the tedious jobs that require no education cheaply?

 

[FriendlyFire]

A) Will buy us another 50 years in order to tackle the problem.