From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: ages Environmental Show Trials
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 03:35:10 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug20.125508.12570@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
]In article <1992Aug19.153426.21442@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]>
]>As Balling points out, the available evidence indicates that global warming
]>is more likely to be beneficial than harmful.
]
]It amazes me that people can be so naive!  "Available evidence"... "more likely
]to be beneficial"...  What if we're missing some crucial evidence?  What if we
]don't really understand the long-term effects of increased atmospheric CO2 and
]methane?  What if it turns out to be a disaster instead of a benefit?  "Oops,
]sorry about that--guess we were wrong.  Too bad it's too late to do anything
]about it now."  Whatever happened to caution?  If we screw up this planet, it's
]a *major* bummer, not just a lesson learned.

Hey, fellow, learn how to read, eh? I didn't say, and Balling didn't say, 
that it WOULD be more beneficial than harmful.
]
]>The most likely warming comes at high latitudes at night. Furthermore,
]>increased precipitation, and increased CO2 concentrations, would improve
]>agricultural productivity. 
]
]More unbounded naivete.  Do we get our "money" back if these happy scenarios

More inability to read.

]>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.
]
]Brilliant logic.  But what if we take modest measures now?  If it turns out, 10
]or 20 years down the road when we know everything there is to know about the
]carbon cycle, that our fears were unfounded, we can relax and undo those
]measures.  If it turns out, though, that our fears *were* justified, at least
]we won't have been compounding the problem for those 10-20 years.  And, as they
]say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  It'll be much harder to
]undo the excesses of those years and lower CO2/methane emissions to acceptable
]levels than it will be to simply continue reduced emissions or reduce them
]more.

Look, this would be a lot easier if you would read what I write
before emoting. First of all, I wrote "5 to 10" and you converted it to
"10-20." Any reason? I further stated that it makes negligible
difference whether we start now or later, but you ignored that completely.
Finally, you assume an ounce of prevention, when it is more reasonable
to assume a ton of prevention, which might not be needed, and which
is almost certainly not needed NOW.
]
]>Also, we are likely to know a lot more about both the hypothesis, and the
]>viability of alternatives to CO2 emissions, in 10 years.
]
]The old "don't do anything until you know exactly what needs to be done"
]argument.  Which is fine if you can afford to wait that long.  Lacking any
]convincing evidence that such a wait is safe or prudent, I think we should play
]it safe.
]
]>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.
]
]First of all, it's not a given that reducing CO2/methane would damage the
]economy.  But even if it was, we'd be justified on the basis that the long-term
]viability of the species is more important than a given fraction of the
]current population: i.e., which is more important: keeping the population
]maximized or ensuring the survival of the species?
]
]>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).
]
]Overpopulation is certainly a major factor.  But the Real Problem is not
]population, per se, it's population *times* per capita environmental impact. 
]We can attack the problem by reducing population or reducing per capita
]environmental impact, but the best approach is to work to reduce both
]simultaneously.
]
]>This is not to say that in 10 years we should not take action - it may be
]>necessary.
]
]How magnanimous of you to admit that, John.
]
]>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).
]
]Sorry, I just don't think this is a wise approach.
]
]>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.
]
]What about the missing option between A and B where modest efforts are taken? 
]Remember Pareto's Rule--the first 90% of excess greenhouse gas emmisions will
]likely be cheaper to cut than the final 10%.  Let's at least go after the
]cheap/easy ones.
]
]>In the year 2040, the difference between the two cases is only .1 degrees C,
]>which is indeed negligible.
]
]God, what incredible faith you have in the current ability to predict long-term
]global change!
]
]>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.
]
]Scenario B is indeed drastic, albeit perhaps necessary.  But how can you
]dismiss a more gradual approach on the grounds that it would, certainly, be
]less effective?
]
]-- 
]Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
]Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
]Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham


-- 
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
 - - Comment too controversial for management - Deleted :-) -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -