From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: CO2 (was Re: ages Environmental Show Trials)
Date: 27 Aug 92 05:31:49 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <l9nhjuINNmol@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.185435.3025@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>
>>Same models *you* are using to generate hysterical claims of human extinction.
>>Why should we believe you and the doomsters instead of Balling.
>
>Because the consequences of putting your faith in Balling if he turns out to be
>wrong are potentially much more severe than the consequences of believing the
>"doomsters" wrong and taking reasonable precautions.

That's *your* opinion. The only *facts* you have to back it up are the
same models that lead Balling to the opposite conclusion.

>>By your own words, you don't know, in fact you say *nobody* knows. So you want
>>to take action based on a *suspicion*?
>
>We have the choice, primarily, of taking two actions:
>    a) emit atmospheric CO2 at current rates
>    b) reduce atmospheric CO2 emissions
>Which approach is safer, given the potential danger of increased atmospheric CO2
>levels?  Consider the worst-case scenario.

Indeed, consider only the mildest case scenario, the OPEC price shocks of
the 1970s. In another post I explained that when the first world has a
cold, the third world has pneumonia. We have a recent historical example
of what happens when someone perturbs energy pricing and consumption.
If we were sensible we'd be building nuclear plants like mad, but it's
clear that what CO2 reduction means in a world terrified of the atom
is higher and yet higher prices for transport and manufacturing energy
needs leading to an inflationary spiral and economic dislocation resulting
in increased unemployment. With the world economies already in recession,
it won't take much of a push to plunge the world into depression. People
die in depressions.

Now lets look at the worst case. In 2040 the world's temperature rises
2 degrees. That leaves the planet with a climate 8 degrees cooler than
it was in the Mesozic. Big dinosaurs were eating lunch in subtropical
Wyoming. Winters were mild, and the macro climate was wetter than it
is now. Lush vegetation grew where bare deserts and stark tundra are
today. The Earth is cooler now than it has been throughout most of
it's history, we are after all in the interglacial of the current
ice age. A little warming would return us to more normal conditions.
Now obviously there would be dislocations. Some areas would be more
pleasant than today and some would be less so. But for the first time
in history we have the capability to do massive relocation and massive
engineered modification to cope with environmental extremes. A better
world? Quite possibly.

>>But waiting is the prudent course. The doomsters say it won't help much
>>if we start changes now,
>
[deleted material covered in another post]
>
>>And the optimists say we don't need to act at all. In this case, playing it 
>>safe means doing nothing until we are sure of what we are doing.
>
>Nonsense.  The potential for catastrophe is greatest if we perturb the carbon
>cycle.  Business as usual isn't, in this respect, safe.

But of course you *are* proposing to perturb the carbon cycle. In a direction
you prefer, naturally, but you are proposing changing something you don't
understand. And you are willing to do so without consideration for economic
side effects that you can't even guess.

>>What if you are wrong?
>
>Then we've spent some effort that we didn't need to and learned a few things
>along the way from research and probably spun off a few new technologies.

And perhaps plunged the world economy into depression and caused people
great hardship and possibly even death. You don't know the odds either
way, yet you are willing to act now.

>>Are you going to say "Sorry guys" to the people of the world whose ecomomy you
>>have disrupted?
>
>No, because I refuse to apologize for doing what I thought was right at the time.
>20/20 hindsight, etc.  Of course, I don't think *reasonable* measures would have
>great negative impact on the economy.

Of course you don't *think* so, but you don't *know*. If you look at the
effect of the OPEC shocks on the second and third worlds, you might get
a better *idea* of what your proposals could mean, and that was during
an economic expansion, not a worldwide recession like we are in now. You 
say you won't apologize because you *thought* you were right, even after 
finding out you were horribly wrong. That's breathtaking arrogance.

>>Are you going to say "Sorry" to the people you killed?
>
>Who would I have killed?

People in the second world who lost their savings from the hyperinflation 
and have no job because of 50% unemployment. People in the third world who 
were unable to buy food. Poor people in the first world rioting because 
their jobs are gone. Look at pictures of the depression of the 1930s
and come back and tell me that economics can't kill. If you can guarantee
that your CO2 reduction proposals won't have unintended economic side
effects, if you can prove that the world's economy won't be toppled from
recession into depression, then I say fine, go ahead. But I don't think
you can.

Gary
Newsgroups: talk.environment