If one is a rational scientific thinker, then the possibility of being wrong must be addressed. Here at this beloved site, we oppose the mainstream on climate change, global warming, you know that nonsense and hot air. But what if we are wrong, someone in an email recently asked? Is the UN and globalists right, and should we pack our bags and give up, living a life of drinking soy milk, instead of hard liquor? Hardly. Here is some literature discussing this hypothetical. The basic line of response is that the best way of dealing with any environmental problem is locally, not globally, because globally the problem is just too big to solve. Thus, if there is a need to reduce waste, then fine, let us overhaul the financial system, which because of its debt structure leads to the need for endless growth, much of which does not serve genuine human interests. In other words, environmentalism could be reinterpreted from the Right, and it would make more sense too.
But don’t panic! Nobody here is saying anything positive about environmentalism, only in the logically possible scenario that we IF were wrong, the argument is far from over.