As unattractive as that it, I find the potential of it less so than the notion that people who live in a place that avoids disaster automatically assume an obligation to compensate those who are struck by it. If people choose to live in a flood plain, that's their decision.
I was talking in terms of cause and effect. People X do something which impacts people Y. Suppose you lived in a flood plain and somebody upstream decides to build a dam. Their actions now place you at a risk you might not being willing to accept. Should they compensate you? I'm not concerned with the original danger in the flood plain (which may in fact be greater without a dam!). Just like I'm not concerned with any other natural issues such as inherited genes, etc. I'm concerned with actions and resulting liabilities.
Now if global warming is not human induced, I would see your point. However, I'm pretty sure that is not the case. Temperatures go up for a reason, and so far, gas concentrations look like the most likely cause. Those arguing against human induced global warming need to start collecting data on other likely causes. There are other theories out there, so time will tell. I'd love to see a stock market game on the issue, people's money is typically a better indication then their rhetoric!
Well, one can take the approach that nuclear waste in your back yard is natural also.
I don't. It's stupid and destructive and reckless to soil your nest.
I'm still trying to understand your POV, that whatever happens is natural (human caused or otherwise). Was this your point or did I miss something? BTW, I chose this example on purpose, since it is caused by humans, but humans are part of nature (many people make that argument to justify human actions). Nature actually created the first nuclear fission reactor in Mali some 4-5Mya (no physicists needed!) I recently read an article on one theory of how it was moderated, something that has stumped the experts. Turns out it was hydrothermally moderated, with a cycle a couple of minutes duration (IIRC).
Step two was determining whether global warming was good or bad. Have you done that? What makes you think it's necessarily bad?
I specifically commented that this was a subject of debate. That is why I said compensation might flow either way. If human induced global warming is good for the planet, those responsible for causing it should get some compensation. If not, the other way around! My best guess, as I stated, is that there will be winners and losers. Hence there should be payers and payees.
We have monetarized many aspects of society. IMHO, we should extend that concept to cover most, if not all aspects. It might be a very simple mechanism to find common ground on contentious issues that currently divide political groups. That is my point. |
