From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: CO2 (was Re: ages Environmental Show Trials)
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:59:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article >l9nrc6INNmol@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>Well, *now* we're talking.

Maybe so.  Is anyone else listening?  Does anyone else care?
Should we take it to email?  Am I amusing?  Isn't it fun to post?

>The Players:
>    Mike -- Mike McCants
[Someday I'm going to steal the system password and figure out how to
post under an assumed name.]
>    Dave -- Dave Sill
>
>Dave:
>>Only if one *knows* it's inadequate, and in this case we don't...
>
>Mike:
>>I thought we already agreed that we do!
>
>I don't think so.

----- previous article inserted here ---

In article (Mike McCants) writes:
>
>The balance between the sources of new atmospheric CO2 and possible
>"sinks" for that new CO2 is so far out of balance that even drastic
>changes cannot make much difference over the next 50 years.
>
>Therefore a more gradual approach can certainly be dismissed as hopelessly
>ineffectual.

Yes, but an inadequate plan is better than none at all.  If we can't get a full
solution, we might have to settle for a partial solution.  While we argue for
the full solution we need to be doing *something*.

----- end of previous article ---

You said "Yes, but..."  Does that mean you said yes?
You really meant no?  You didn't read my statement carefully enough?
Why didn't you challenge my premise?

[There have already been posts about "do something".]

>Mike:
>>I did not see a convincing cost/benefit analysis.
>
>I don't have one, but I agree that one would have to be done before the
>decision was made.
>
>>What is proposed?  What would it cost?
>
>I can't answer those questions, I'm just a concerned citizen.  I'll leave it
>to experts in the field...

Me, too.  Seems like some experts should have already spent some time
on this problem.  I'll go find experts that I like and you do the same.

>>Are there really likely to be any benefits?
>
>Sure.  Money will be spent on R&D and consumers will buy new products. 
>Conservation is a Good Thing outside of reducing just CO2 emissions--all
>power production related problems are likewise reduced.

I'm not convinced that "money will be spent" is a benefit.  I thought it was
a cost!  Conservation is a Good Thing.  I'm going to go hungry tomorrow.
[I could stand to lose a few pounds.]  Better, I'll stop feeding my wife
and kids, divorce her, and spend all my time reading news and posting.
[Wait a minute, that is going Too Far.]

I won't spend $20 in gas to drive to the SCCA races last weekend and
I've decided not to drive to Dallas to visit my mother-in-law.  Oops,
I'm still married and my wife says it's my "duty".  Oh well, I promise
not to buy a new car, I'll drive the old clunker another year.  Oops,
that's not Good.  A new car would cause someone to be employed and would
use a lot less gasoline and create a lot less pollution.  I can definitely
reduce my electricity comsumption by turning off my air conditioning.
Then maybe my wife will divorce me!  I'm confused.  I don't know whom
to vote for.  Why are there so many choices?  Can't I find someone
that I trust to make my decisions for me?  Is it really important?
What is the meaning of life?

[Now you're thinking "You're pathetic - why should I waste my time on you?",
so I'll add a :-) to try to confuse you.]  :-)

[Remember, it took me a lot longer to compose that drivel than it did for
you to read it.  But, if there are more than 10 readers left, it balances
out.]

>>How much will we pay so that a CO2 level of 3.195% will be reached
>>in July, 2022 instead of June, 2022?
>>
>>Who has that signature with a statement about numbers?
>
>These numbers are available, it's just outside of my area of expertise.

It's a good thing we're posting to a talk newsgroup, we sure don't seem
to be accomplishing much in the way of real information.

>I'm confident that there are *some* measures we can easily afford.

I'm not confident that any measure "we can easily afford" would have
any significant benefits to compensate for its non-zero costs.

>That they
>won't solve the whole problem doesn't mean we shouldn't enact them.  That
>right there is my entire point in this thread.

My point is that a cost/benefit analysis is appropriate.  I never claimed
that we shouldn't enact them because they won't solve the whole problem.
I claim that a cost/benefit analysis is obviously negative and that's
why we shouldn't enact them.

>You argue that the middle ground won't solve the
>problem, so why bother?

Nope.  I argue that a cost/benefit analysis is negative.  Therefore we
shouldn't bother.

>I argue that half a dose is better than no dose.  If
>you disagree, then what more can I say?

I claim that "half a dose is better than none" is not the right
argument compared to a proper cost/benefit analysis.

>Mike:
>>How much do "reasonable measures" cost?
>
>Dave:
>They're affordable, by definition of "reasonable".

I claim that "affordable" is not the same thing at all as "reasonable".
I can afford a lot of things that are quite "unreasonably" priced compared
to their utility for me.

>Dave:
>If we can't agree that
>the cost/benefit analysis is favorable, we won't do it.

Wow, I'm on line 143 of my response and now we have a rather fundamental
point of agreement.  Why didn't I delete all the other stuff?

But, it now occurs to me, that, of course, the "we" that that needs to
"agree" is not you and me in this republic.  The "we" is, of course,
those who will pass the laws.  So, as usual, this is a political problem
and those who write the laws must be convinced that THEIR "cost/benefit"
is positive.  Since their cost/benefit is not so much dollars as it is
getting reelected, their cost/benefit is to impose the costs on as "few"
as possible so that as "many" as possible THINK that they personally
have a positive benefit/cost ratio.  So, the action does not really
have to have a positive value, it must SEEM to have a positive value
to the "many".

>Mike:
>>Are there any cheap/easy [ways to reduce CO2 emissions]?
>
>Dave:
>Yes, relatively speaking.  Conservation and CAFE/gas tax will certainly be
>cheaper than, say, replacing all fossil-fuel steam plants with nukes.

"Replacing" over what time span?  Let's get away from "cheaper" and
go back to cost/benefit analysis.  Compare the cost/benefit of CAFE
and "properly" building "nukes".  [Assuming, of course, that the "political"
problems could be overcome.]  I remain of the opinion that CAFE has
a negative cost/benefit and new "nukes" COULD have a positive cost/benefit.
[IF the "political" costs were not so astronomical.]

>Yes, I think a CAFE increase *is* relatively cheap and easy.

Cheap for whom?  The government?  The new car buyer?
Easy for whom?  The government?  The "domestic" manufacturers?  Foreign?
What is the penalty for failing to meet CAFE?  Death?  Gas guzzler tax?
Bankruptcy for one of the Big Three?  What is the politician's benefit/
cost ratio?

>Dave Sill

Mike McCants