Re: Planning to move to New ZealandtevarinJune 27 2006, 20:20:00 UTC
I'm not that concerned with what company I'm in. Guilt by association? IMRHO, Rove is a malignant disgrace to humanity and the American political system, but that doesn't mean everything he says is wrong by definition.
I think you have a point that displacements and migrations due to global warming may not be easy or peaceful. But note that it's not the end of the world. New Orleans has levees. Venice is building barriers to keep out high tides. The Dutch have been pushing the ocean back since before carbon dioxide was discovered. Cities can be saved if needed, when needed. Displacements can be minimized.
And a few decades can make all the difference. To me, it seems foolish to spend lots of money now fixing a problem that won't cause serious harm for a hundred years. Better to invest that money in research and education to come up with a better solution twenty years from now. To take an extreme case, should we be buying big piles of ice and air conditioning units now to hold out when the sun expands into a red giant star in a few billion years? That will surely be a bigger catastrophe than a few flooded islands.
I were indeed a boy scout. The responsible take on this issue seems to me to be to deal with it in a way that minimizes costs and maximizes benefits. There's room for legitimate disagreement on methods, but sometimes "Let's worry about it in a few decades so we can save some money now" really is the best and most efficient response.
I don't think I am in disagreement with 99% of the world's scientists. I don't deny that global warming exists. I don't deny that it's a problem that will have to be dealt with one way or another. I do think that the currently proposed methods for dealing with the problem (e.g. Kyoto) are badly flawed, and we're better off investing in research and looking for better solutions over time, rather than bulling ahead with expensive and uncertain measures now.
I'm all in favor of clean technology and fuel efficiency. See previous comment. I'm even all for protecting the environment. I just think thst global warming isn't the most serious threat the environment (or mankind) faces. If it's a choice between spending a million dollars on squirting waste carbon dioxide into old coal mines, or spending the same money on a bunch of windmill electrical generators, put me down in favor of the windmills.
I think you have a point that displacements and migrations due to global warming may not be easy or peaceful. But note that it's not the end of the world. New Orleans has levees. Venice is building barriers to keep out high tides. The Dutch have been pushing the ocean back since before carbon dioxide was discovered. Cities can be saved if needed, when needed. Displacements can be minimized.
And a few decades can make all the difference. To me, it seems foolish to spend lots of money now fixing a problem that won't cause serious harm for a hundred years. Better to invest that money in research and education to come up with a better solution twenty years from now. To take an extreme case, should we be buying big piles of ice and air conditioning units now to hold out when the sun expands into a red giant star in a few billion years? That will surely be a bigger catastrophe than a few flooded islands.
I were indeed a boy scout. The responsible take on this issue seems to me to be to deal with it in a way that minimizes costs and maximizes benefits. There's room for legitimate disagreement on methods, but sometimes "Let's worry about it in a few decades so we can save some money now" really is the best and most efficient response.
I don't think I am in disagreement with 99% of the world's scientists. I don't deny that global warming exists. I don't deny that it's a problem that will have to be dealt with one way or another. I do think that the currently proposed methods for dealing with the problem (e.g. Kyoto) are badly flawed, and we're better off investing in research and looking for better solutions over time, rather than bulling ahead with expensive and uncertain measures now.
I'm all in favor of clean technology and fuel efficiency. See previous comment. I'm even all for protecting the environment. I just think thst global warming isn't the most serious threat the environment (or mankind) faces. If it's a choice between spending a million dollars on squirting waste carbon dioxide into old coal mines, or spending the same money on a bunch of windmill electrical generators, put me down in favor of the windmills.
Reply
Leave a comment