From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Gore Stages Environmental Show Trials
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:34:26 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug18.185554.9334@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> ejalbert@jaameri.gsfc.nasa.gov (E. Jason Albert) writes:
]I think it is a matter of different approaches to this issue.  You would support
]action if I could show a dramatic temp. increase.  By then, though, it will be
]too late.  But let me even concede more -- you claim the data are uncertain.
]OK, I don't believe so, but I'll agree.  You say that argues that we should do
]nothing.  I think it argues that we should err on the side of caution, because
]if global warming is right, by the time we conclusively establish that to your
]satisfaction, it will be too late to do anything about it.

As Balling points out, the available evidence indicates that global warming
is more likely to be beneficial than harmful. The most likely warming
comes at high latitudes at night. Furthermore, increased precipitation,
and increased CO2 concentrations, would improve agricultural productivity.

He also shows very impressively that even if you accept the global warming
hypothesis, there is no reason whatsoever to take immediate action, because
the environmental impact of taking action now rather than 5 or 10 years from
now is negligible, while the societal impact is substantail. Also, we are
likely to know a lot more about both the hypothesis, and the viability
of alternatives to CO2 emissions, in 10 years.

I would like to add that any political action that damages the economy
kills people who are marginal to begin with (in the third world). When
one advocates expensive measures to limit CO2 emissions, one is advocating
(without realizing it) millions of deaths in the poorest populations.
Furthermore, I think that the greatest environmental threat is overpopulation,
which is demonstrably worse when there is poverty (due to the margninal
advantage to a poor family of having additional children).

This is not to say that in 10 years we should not take action - it may be
necessary. However, it makes a lot of sense to wait awhile (given that even
in the case where the global warming predictions are correct, it makes
little difference whether we start now or 10 years out).

Balling compares two scenarios:
  A. No effort at all to restrict emissions.
  B. Immediate major shifts to lower carbon fuels. Major efficiency increases. 
     Carbon monoxide controls stringent, deforestation reversed.

In the year 2040, the difference between the two cases is only .1 degrees C,
which is indeed negligible. Furthermore, scenario B does not STOP global
warming, it only retards it by a few years. Scenario B is likely to have
disastrous economic consequences if implemented in a short time, and if 
implemented more gradually would probably have less effect on global warming.

"  We could play these hypothetical games on and on, but one message is 
consistent throughout. The public, and presumably many decisioinmakers, appear
to believe that various policies can STOP global warming. In reality, the 
policies seem to have remarkably little effect on the warming, despite efforts 
made to maximize, or even inflate, the climate impact of these policies. The 
public, and the decisionmakers, must be fairly and objectively told just how 
much of the warming will be spared by adopting various policies. People may 
support policies that "stop global warming," but they may be far less willing to
support policies that reduce warming by only a few tenth's of a degree" (1)

(1) Balling, Robert. The Heated Debate. Page 139.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc