[ExI] Next Decade May See No Warming
stefano.vaj at gmail.com
Mon May 5 09:37:58 UTC 2008
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> Stefano Vaj wrote:
> > "Profits" ordinarily mean "the difference between earnings and costs".
> > I do not see how this margin would be reduced by a compulsory plan,
> > say, to reduce CO2 emissions everywhere.
> If as the IPCC models say if you read them closely the median expected
> temperature delta is around 1.6 degree C in 100 years then most of the
> plans to date are hysterical overkill. Also the Kyoto accords if fully
> implemented would make less than a few hundreds of a degree difference
> in the same 100 years. So why exactly are we falling into CO2
> hysterics? I am strongly reminded of the anti-nuclear power hysteria
> of the 70s. An interesting question is why this hysteria is being
> whipped up.
I do agree on the fact that this is interesting, even though it may
say little on the hard facts being (or not) behind this hysteria.
I have no final opinion on the issue of GM, but I am pretty sure that
- emission reduction is not a kind of zero-cost panacea
short-sightedly resisted by greedy megacorporations (the profits of
the latter would not dip at all in the framework of a globally
enforced plan, but at the same time we would be all the poorer)
- it is irrational to base the decision on what price we would be
ready to avoid or to limit GM, if it exists at all, on the question of
whether it is anthropic or not.
More information about the extropy-chat