At 08:19 AM Friday 9/29/2006, Dan Minette wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 10:30 PM
> To: 'Killer Bs Discussion'
> Subject: RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there
> is no reliab...
> >
>>I was thinking of a temporary halt...during the recession.
> And I'm not sure that even a "temporary" halt would not lead to
> something more like a catastrophic economic meltdown rather than a
> mere "recession" . . .
Thinking about the general definition of recession as a drop in GDP for two
quarters, and not applying it too literally, my point is that there is a
strong tie between economic growth and increase in energy usage.
I agree. Which is my point about China, India, and the rest of the
world: as their economies grow, their energy usage per capita is
going to grow. And their "capita" is already much larger than ours . . .
Averaged
over the last decade, most countries have improved their energy use per unit
of GDP....not tremendously, but noticeably. During economic downturns,
energy use typically drops slightly. So, a pause in economic growth should
cause a pause in the growth of energy use.
I agree.
My question is whether a cut of 60% or 94% or whatever figure you
found and cited as necessary to stop or reverse the environmental
damage, or a cut even a fraction as large, a cut large enough to see
_any_ gains wrt global warming, no matter how minuscule, will lead to
a "pause" for a few quarters or something which will make 1929 look
like a minor blip, and itself perhaps lead to the deaths of millions
worldwide due to starvation or disease (IOW, consequences just about
as bad as the worst-case scenarios predict if we do not take such
drastic action)?
Just as we have "only one global environment" that we can't afford to
screw up, we have "only one global economy," and screwing it up could
lead to just as negative consequences for the human race as screwing
up the environment past the "point of no return." And we have to get
both of them right the first time, based on knowledge which will
always be inadequate, because we can't know the long-term
consequences of our actions until they occur . . .
-- Ronn! :)
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
