From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: ages Environmental Show Trials
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:04:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.042444.12212@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.034714.1379@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Myerson) writes:
>>>
>>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.

Your analogy about clouds is not accurate.  The threat is genuine, and
a range of magnitudes has been stated.  The 2 degree worst case you
mention (another post)
is actually a little less than the middle case, which is 2.5 C.
The worst case is closer to 4.5 or 5 degrees.  Most of the modelers
think that it is important to _start_ not controlling emissions.  They
suggest starting by leveling the emissions.  
>
>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

I agree. I prefer develope, undeveloped, etc.

>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

Please provide any proof that CO2 leveling would create a similar
impact.  A leveling of emissions will lead to _cheaper_ energy
sources in the long run, which would have the opposite impact
that you describe above.  This will happen because the path to
lower emissions is efficiency, not controls.  AS I said before,
I will summarize a study that demonstrates this.  Since I will 
be out of town for a few days, it probably won't get posted till
the end of next week.  There are in fact, many studies that show
that efficiency will lower the cost of energy.  I have posted on
these subjects before with a study from EPRI, though that study
did not address the emissions issue.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)