To: Maurice Winn who wrote (49291 ) 5/12/2004 12:19:10 PM From: Moominoid Read Replies (1) | Respond to Moom, I don't want it hot and wet. I don't believe that adding about 10% of the atmospheric CO2 is going to make it hot and wet. At best, I think we'll avoid another glaciation period. But if it did get wet, it wouldn't be a big deal. Cities need upgrading more often than every hundred years. Economic cycles work in 15 years, or 20 years for investments. Returns after 20 years are usually not particularly relevant. It's the returns in the first decade or two of investment which represent the great majority of returns. Meanwhile, it's silly to worry about the low risk of a few metres sea level rise over 100 or 200 years compared with the high risk of a 50 metre instant sea level rise due to small size bolides. The fashion now seems to be that global warming will cause an ice age, thanks to the Gulf Stream being turned off, which I also don't believe will happen since ice has been melting in a very big way for 10,000 years and it didn't stop and cause an ice age to return. The relative trickle of water from Greenland etc is trivial compared with the vast floods accompanying the big melt as the ice cover moved north across North American and the Russian/European land masses. One thing I'd suggest is tariffs, which would make oil relatively more expensive. That would have a dual good effect in that it would reduce greenhouse gases, since they are considered bad, and make local production with lots of labour laws and environmental protection more competitive.
