Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (31912)	6/8/2002 9:46:47 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

This last EPA stuff is bull, if I understand it correctly; "It's coming, we are the main cause, don't worry, be happy, adapt or die". I think the argument is, it's coming, we can't affect it very much even by spending a ton of money, maybe we can slow it down for a few years at best. Since we can't prevent it, it would be more cost-effective to spend the money on adaption than prevention.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (31912)	6/10/2002 5:05:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Okay Rats, so I won the argument about whether CO2 is poisonous or not. It isn't toxic at the levels we are discussing in the atmosphere, so that argument about CO2 being toxic is simply flim-flam. I don't usually take satisfaction in winning an argument but I make an exception here because you pulled the "I am an expert medical God" shroud-waving stunt which some experts use to win an argument without using their expertise or ability to reason. I am wayyyyy too long in the tooth and seen too many such efforts to be bluffed by that one. I've had arrogant but dumb medical people hashing up my and my children's lives for too many decades to take their ignorant ideas at face value. It really does annoy me. People die because of it. It's quite insulting to tell people not to worry their pretty little heads about something because we experts are in charge and will decide how to spend your money, starting with tranferring it into our own pockets. Unfortunately, they are not the world champions - politicians and armies can cause deaths by the millions whereas doctors' mistakes are accidental [if careless] and happen one by one and usually they have success. So, back to our normal approach of reason. It's a much more productive way of getting to the truth as we have seen so far in our discussions. Now, your economic argument: <As far as greenhouse, if I'm wrong and we do something, no big deal. It costs money, sort of, but...the money doesn't disappear; it is not a CO2 free fuel being burned for energy. Let's say you have to buy emission control equipment. Yeah, that costs you money, but, fortunately for me, I own the company that you turn to to solve your problems, so I gain a lot of money (whichc I give away to my researchers, suppliers, employees,lawyers, accountants, and a few cents to, or back from, the government.) Then, if you are lucky and have a good product, all the people I gave your money to will give it back to get your product. If you are wrong and we do nothing, I'm going to be living on an island instead of a 2000 foot hill. > Your economic ideas are wrong. While digging millions of holes worth $1000 each and paying another company to fill them in again at $5000 each [doing it by hand and with carefully checked compaction and water content management] will add $$$billions to the economic output, it doesn't actually contribute anything to human happiness, peace, light and harmony. We'd have public debt, deficit financing, inflation, opportunity cost, no consumer surplus and an economy like Easter Island [where they built big heads looking out to sea - more interesting than holes in the ground, but no more economically productive]. If we dig holes and pour liquid CO2 down them, we will incur a lot of direct cost, opportunity cost, no consumer surplus and an economy like Easter Island. It is not enough to say that something might happen and maybe we are wrong and so any expense to avoid an imaginary risk is worthwhile because "What if we are wrong?" We can't defeat all risks in our lives, so we have to handle the most dangerous, proven and cost-effective risks and live with the rest. I say an incoming space-mountain is a certainty and the consequences enormous. Your 2000 foot hill won't be high enough if the splash is in the vicinity. There are plenty of other clear and present dangers to worry about instead of a theoretical and relatively inconsequential risk of 3 degrees warming and a small sea-level rise of a metre or three over a century or two. I guess you have heard that Pakistan and India are planning nuclear war which will kill about 100 or 200 million people. Sure, thinking about, investigating and understanding the effects of CO2 levels is worthwhile, but shroud-waving isn't sufficient basis to incur huge costs which are as real as coffins in a graveyard. Mqurice PS: Okay, maybe I overdosed on the "I know best" position you took, but you hit a hot button! I really do appreciate your explanations about CO2 and respiratory stuff. You hit another hot-button with the "digging holes and filling them in again costs nothing" argument too. Some people extend that one to 'war is economically productive'. They are no doubt pleased about the great economic boost that the destruction of the WTC and 3000 people provided.