Kevin B. O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If the problem were not urgent, if we had the luxury of reducing CO2
> emissions by 30% over the next hundred years, I would probably agree
> with you. Tweaking market incentives would probably be a very good way
> to address that sort of problem. But when you are confronted with an
> urgent life-or-death problem, the primary problem is not one of
> efficiency. For example, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we did
> not worry about the most efficient, market-based way of letting the
> private sector respond.
The "solution" to Pearl Harbor was straightforward. The "solution" to
the environment is not. I don't see how some politicians, who have spent
precious little time studying either the environment or economics, will be
capable of solving the "problem". Simply deciding to go to war on the
environment will not help, and on balance, will probably cause harm.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
