What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
by rockdoc123 » Fri 11 Apr 2008, 14:49:40
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')o my mind the only downsides to combating it is a cleaner less energy intensive planet.
I would agree if there was limitless capital available to solve the world's problems, unfortunately there is not. An argument made by one group of European economists was that it made more sense to spend capital on issues that 1. we are absolutely sure of the cause and 2. we have a proven means of solving. As a consequence in their analysis things like HIV, getting third world countries to move away from wood burning for fuel, malaria etc. are better places to spend money by far than global warming.
-

rockdoc123
- Expert

-
- Posts: 7685
- Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00
-
by Lore » Fri 11 Apr 2008, 21:23:32
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rockdoc123', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')o my mind the only downsides to combating it is a cleaner less energy intensive planet.
I would agree if there was limitless capital available to solve the world's problems, unfortunately there is not. An argument made by one group of European economists was that it made more sense to spend capital on issues that 1. we are absolutely sure of the cause and 2. we have a proven means of solving. As a consequence in their analysis things like HIV, getting third world countries to move away from wood burning for fuel, malaria etc. are better places to spend money by far than global warming.
I don't think anyone is talking about the use of limitless capital to mediate the issue of climate change nor does it escalate to that. This idea that any action will break the back of world economies, or that the money is better spent doing things we are sure about is an often repeated straw man argument.
For one thing, we will never be absolutely 100% sure. However, if you agree with the 90%+ probability as put forth by the IPCC that AGW is indeed a fact, then as a matter of good risk management, by the statistics alone, you are obliged to take some type of action.
All this kind of talk is the Bjorn Lomborg delayist argument. This for me is worst then being a denialist. We have enough money in the world to remedy all those social problems now, with enough left over to be engaged in a few fruitless wars. We only lack the will to do so. The lack of world morality in one man helping his fellow man is well documented.
I would worry more about stopping first world countries from burning wood in the future, with the way things are going, then that of poor third world nations.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt