I'm not sure who you are addressing... I haven't heard anyone state, "it doesn't matter!" Of course I don't hear "everything" reported either. As far as - "greedy industrialists that have no intention to "invest" that extra money for future generation." - I assume you believe that "greed" is defined by keeping ones money/profits to one's self? Greed can also be defined in other ways; such as those who do invest in future energies so they can control the same future energies on down the road. Big oil is investing in green technology. They are not hoarding all their profits for themselves in a bank vault somewhere. This is about a global economy. Here is an example of oil investing in green tech - http://www.cafcp.org/about-us/members2 The companies listed (oil, car manufacturers, etc.) are investing in green tech to improve life and to control those resources as well. It is a double edged sword. That's all. Like I said... I want a clean environment... but some of the tax schemes seem ridiculous.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. However, in such a case, I'd rather support those that are investing in green and not those who are not. Earlier this year I had started a discussion about "caring for environment" and you would be surprised how many said they didn't care. As far as the double edged sword goes, it does have positive impact in the sense that an important factor of our life is being taken care of. When I mentioned "greed", I referred to those that say "global warming is nothing but media hype"...only to make it look like nothing's going on.
Just consider that: Asia, spearheading with China is gearing up for green technology. They have discovered the big advantages in that industry already. These are the ones that will control, unless the "greedy industrialists" make a full commitment to green tech - period. I still believe that the know how could lean towards the west, but this could be lost without the commitment necessary.
Whether it's man made or not, you're right, it will balance itself out. Probably by wiping out most of mankind, but who would care about that? We're just another species on earth that can face extinction like any other. In the interest of "risk management" my vote is to do whatever we can to stop it / reduce its impact.
Man Made Global warming is as close to a myth as I have seen. The data simply doesn't back up the theories. Anyone who believes the fear mongers is basically an idiot with a memory span of at most a decade. The very researchers who are chosen to measure sea levels and polar ice caps have admitted that there was a hot period for almost a decade where things did look to be warming, but since 2001 the opposite has been true. Sea levels have been dropping and polar ice shelves have been increasing. The fear mongers often try to grab quotes from pre 2001 to substantiate their claims. HOWEVER, whether there is global warming or not, we still have a responsibility to live as efficiently and cleanly as possible. The earth will continue to live strong, but man made problems may cause a few species to die out, and cause the world to be dirty in the process. Another thing....plant life LOVES CO2. Its what they breathe. Its been shown that in the prehistoric times CO2 was around triple what it is today. The result? Nothing much...just plantlife thriving and taking over land mass (previously thought to be water based), evolving faster and better than ever. Once plants were able to rule the world they were breathing the CO2 and pumping out oxygen. Then guess what happened? Next it was the oxygen breathing lifeforms that thrived. The world has never been "in balance" but it too and fro (not sure if that is the right spelling) around a central point.
Also. Those talking about Green technology. They arn't trying to develop green technology for the benefit of the earth. They are doing it because it for economical reasons. Simply supply and demand. Current energy sources (coal etc) are very limited. They WILL run out. However the closer and closer you get to the date where they run out, the more and more expensive these increasingly rare resources become. With this increase in cost of resources it costs more and more $$ to develop new energy sources (supply is incredibly small, demand is incredibly large). By spending the money now to develop the technology they are actually saving a huge amount of money that they would have to spend in the future. To find out more about this read Game Over by Stephen Leeb.
Who develops anything without a plan for financial gain? Do you think Microsoft developed Windows for charity? The point is not whether or not there is a financial gain behind a product or theory launched. It's whether or not it's doing any good to the world...If the investors in green technology happen to gain some money out of it, would you not be doing the same if you had the money in the first place? Bottomline: The development in eco-friendly technology does lead to something noteworthy. And that what remains important!
Its not eco friendly. Its an alternative source of energy. The only time "green" energy will be viable is when it is cheaper than alternative "dirty" sources. This is basically when all the dirty energy is all used up. Putting so many resources into developing new technology actually quickens the pace of "dirty" energy being used. The end result is that dirty energy sources get used up 10 years earlier but we have a replacement energy source to use in the future. Either way the maximum amount of CO2 will have been pumped into the air.