[extropy-chat] The great global warming swindle

[Robert Bradbury]

On 4/6/07, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> ### By all means! Especially if there were problems that would need to
> be addressed. But, since the predicted net effect of global warming on
> the US economy is a gain of about 50 billion dollars over the next few
> decades (after adding losses from increased cooling loads, minor
> losses from the few inches of rising ocean levels, and adding gains
> from reduced heating bills and greatly improved agricultural output),
> I feel no pressing need to find solutions.


Rafal, I believe you are going to have to cite a reference for this.  And in
particular, is the perspective only a U.S. perspective or a "world neutral"
perspective?  And if it were framed in "world neutral" perspectives (i.e. we
relocate all individuals living on islands < 10m above sea level to Great
Bear lake in CA [significantly warmer at some point in the future]) would
the consequences still be $50B+?

If you are not arguing from a world perspective then one is arguing from the
perspective of "I win, you lose, so?"  As $500B misspent in Iraq shows that
perspective may be flawed [1].

I would like to see the discussion take a perspective of "What is the most
extropic path?"  How does one save the greatest number of people at the
least cost?  So one might devote those funds toward advancing things like
nanotechnology R&D.  In the face of robust MNT global warming is a *red
herring*.  I've stated it before and I'll state it again "global warming
does not matter if one has robust MNT."  If one has robust MNT one simply
removes all of the CO2 and CH4 from the atmosphere, piles it up in nice
refrigerated storage areas and watches while all the plant life dies.  It is
*really* that simple.  So what this entire conversation is about is a
perspective involving some window between when global warming becomes
"critical" and robust MNT is unavailable.  I would like to see anyone frame
that argument (with references of course).

Robert

1. And let us *not* get into this since it goes back into the history of
colonial powers carving up regions of land encompassing tribes relatively
incapable of coexisting.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070406/ebe0657f/attachment.html>