Oh yes, because the economy is so much harder to fix than the environment...</sarcasm>
Seriously though my question to counter that argument is this: What will happen to the economy when we hit the environmental tipping point and our livestock starts dropping dead from heatstroke on a regular basis? The economic damage is inevitable if mankind is influencing the environment, so I think it's better to take it while we still have an environment to save. -----Original Message----- From: Judah McAuley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 4:52 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: FW: NOAA - Arctic changes are affecting climate elsewhere The strongest reply to that I've seen is that many people think that the recommendations to fix the problem would be too costly elsewhere...like cutting out coal from our energy matrix would have costs high enough for industry that it would cause damage to our economy, etc. So in their mind, it is like saying, "An asteroid is coming to earth, burn your house down!" and then the asteroid misses and you are stuck without a house. I don't agree with that of course, I agree with you, but that's the argument I've heard. Judah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:329810 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
