From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: ages Environmental Show Trials
Date: 27 Aug 92 04:24:44 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug26.034714.1379@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Myerson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.185435.3025@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug20.125508.12570@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>>
>>But waiting is the prudent course. The doomsters say it won't help much
>>if we start changes now, changes that are guaranteed to kill people. 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.  What if 
>>you are wrong? Are you going to say "Sorry guys" to the people of the world 
>>whose ecomomy you have disrupted? Are you going to say "Sorry" to the people 
>>you killed?
>
>>
>Okay, I can't resist it anymore.  I have to jump in.  Is it prudent to do nothing
>when there is an unknown threat approaching?  Is it prudent to stand on the
>shore because the hurricane might go elsewhere?  The IPCC report shows that
>there is a genuine, if not well understood threat.  Thr prudent course would
>be to do something.  What something?  It is clear that lessening CO2 
>emissions will lessen the threat of climate change.  How much will it lower the
>threat?  Hard to say.  It will lower it, howevere.  And what is this silliness
>about killing people.  While major economic change in the 3rd world could
>cause this, most CO2 emissions come from the 1st world, the U.S. specifically.
>This is where the actions are justified now.

If the magnitude of the threat is truly unknown, like if a ship captain
says, "I saw some nasty looking clouds on the horizon a few hundred miles
and a couple of days out.", then the prudent man keeps an eye on the 
horizon but doesn't evacuate the port. To do so would injure the people
who work at the port without good reason. This is about where we stand
with respect to the postulated greenhouse warming. We have heard warnings
from modelers of danger over the horizon, but we don't know if the danger
is serious or even if it is headed our way yet. Even the modelers say
we have time yet to determine if the danger is great or small. To act
precipitously now would surely do economic damage to people without
a clear understanding of the costs and benefits of the actions. That's
rash. That's potentially dangerous.

>>God, what incredible arrogance you have in casually dismissing the deaths
>>of millions based on the same, so you say, flimsy evidence of climate
>>models that you want to use to drastically restructure the economic and
>>energy face of the world.
>
>The deaths of millions of people?  How ridiculous.  Please show me something
>that proves how a leveling of CO2 emissions in the 1st world will kill
>millions of people.

Actions in the first world have effects on people in the second and
third worlds. (God, I hate this three world crap.) The world's economies
interconnect and interact. It's been said that when the first world
has a cold, the third world catches pneumonia. That's not far from
the truth. A slowdown in the first world's economy caused by increased
costs of transport and manufacturing has cascade effects through the
second and third world economies. An example of this is the OPEC price
shocks of the 1970s. The US economy fell and unemployment rose to double
digits while inflation raged to a peak near 20%. In the second world,
some nations saw a 1000% inflation rate and 50% unemployment due to
loss of trade and economic activity. In some of the third world, people
saw food shipments slow to a trickle because they no longer could pay
for them. People died in the third world. People saw their retirement
savings dwindle to nothing in the second world. And people in the
first world had to wait in lines. The impact on the first world was
one of inconvienence. The impact on the second world was one of
desperation. The impact on the third world was death. Your CO2
emmission limits would have a shock worse than OPEC's on the world's
economies. It's callous and cruel in the extreme to act rashly when
the results are death for people who have no say in your actions.

Gary