At 10:46 PM 7/2/01 +0200 Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
>I don't think the idea is obsolete just
>because some people don't want to reduce their overall energy usage or
because
>it is hard to do and costs money.
This is delving into the archives a bit, but I really wanted to address the
above statement.
An idea most certainly *is* obsolete if it costs money - well if it costs
too much money, anyways. I mean why else would we do something, other
than the fact that it costs money?
After all, environmental concerns are ultimately problems because they cost
us money. I haven't really seen much evidence that global warming will
actually kill people directly - other than it might kill people by greatly
increasing the cost of living in certain areas.
Ultimately, it is entirely possible that the marginal cost of certain
"environmental remedies" may be greater than the marginal environmental
benefit that these "remedies" will render to humanity. In this case,
these remedies should be rejected.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
We are products of the same history, reaching from Jerusalem and
Athens to Warsaw and Washington. We share more than an alliance.
We share a civilization. - George W. Bush, Warsaw, 06/15/01
