Subject:
|
Re: Quick Poll - Kyoto
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 30 Mar 2001 05:50:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
314 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> >
> > I am not sure I agree. Kyoto provided a framework for the worlds biggest
> > polluters to reduce their polluting output. If you think it is not as good
> > as it could be as it focuses on 40 or so industrialised economies - but
> > ignores the developing economies - I'd agree to a certain extent.{1} Despite
> > that, I can't see how it is "bad".
> >
> > I suppose a good question here is how should we view “the environment”; as
> > luxury or a necessity?
>
> That's the wrong question, because it begs the answer.
>
> I would suggest that a different line of questioning may be more fruitful.
>
> - Is the specific problem that Kyoto purports to solve really a problem?
Probably. Apologies for the glib answers here -- I'm more interested in the
logic behind them.
> If so, how bad?
Worst case scenario -- global catastrophe. Even if Greenhouse _itself_ isn't
catastrophic, it might be in combination with other ecological stresses.
> If we're not sure, what level of risk can we tolerate?
None.
1. It is a problem, we try to fix it.
2. It is a problem, we do nothing.
3. It isn't a problem, we try to fix the non-problem.
4. It isn't a problem, we do nothing.
1. Cross fingers, pat selves on back.
2. Cross fingers really tight, die.
3. Polluting energy abandoned for cleaner energy. Some companies lose, some
gain. Environment less polluted.
4. Great.
The costs of 2. are so much higher than of 3., it's better to go down the 3.
path rather than end up on the 2. path (especially if 3. turns out to be 1., and
even if 2. turns out to be 4.). This is generally called the precautionary
principle.
> - Is the pallative suggested really a fix?
It's already compromised, which doesn't mean it would be worthless. It's more of
a fix than no fix at all.
> - Is the Kyoto protocol the most effective way to apply the pallative?
Even if it isn't, a more effective measure isn't on the table at the moment.
Opportunity cost could override inefficiencies in implementation.
--DaveL
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Quick Poll - Kyoto
|
| (...) That's the wrong question, because it begs the answer. I would suggest that a different line of questioning may be more fruitful. - Is the specific problem that Kyoto purports to solve really a problem? If so, how bad? If we're not sure, what (...) (24 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
