--- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The bottom line, Judy, is if you truly believe global warming is the > crisis that it is, you will have to be consistent in your personal > life and stop driving cars and taking planes and doing any activity > that adds to global warming.
You continue to qualify the climate change problem in two ways. Such constant use, appears that you are using these as strawmen -- and thus playing games. I hope not. First "crisis". Is a problem only a problem until it reaches a crisis statge? For example, is Social Security just fine until the checks are no longer sent? Was Hitler no problem in the 30's until he invaded Poland? It seems the hallmark of good leadership is to forsee problems as they develop and mitigate them before they reach crisis stage. Your argument about "crises" appears to reflect a mind thinking all is "just gal'darn shucks good" until the oceans rise 12 feet. And problems, prior to crisis, are always probabalistic as to the timing, duration and even potential for a crises. But everyone in the world acts under uncertainty. There are good methods to deal with decisions under uncertainty. (You like one such approach months back having to do with NO and the levees.) That approach is applicable here. If there is a 33% probability of a crises (say as indicated by a given crisis benchmark of oceans risiing 12 feet in 50 years, then what is the "expected value" of the crisis' impact? Its the cost 50 years out -- lets say a $100 trillion over the following 50 years to be very conservative, x 33% == 33.3 trillion, discounted back 50 years to the present. using long term growth rates as the discount rate, thats 4600 billion. Thus, if we spend less than $4600 billion today to avert a possible (33% probability) crises in 50 years, we / society is ahead of the game, its a profitable investment. Lets say we don't just want to break even on social investments, but score big. So we cut the investment threshold by 2, insuring a hugely profitable return (of avoided costs) on the investment. so about 2300 billion. Spread over 10 years, 230 billion / year or so would be a very profitable play. Over this 10 year investment horizon, the cost 50 years out, and the pobability of occurance can be adjusted appropriately. If the costs and/or probability are seen to be lower, the investments can be diminished or curtailed. And vice versa. Your other strawman is the constant use of the term "global warming" when the problem is global climate change. Some areas will become warmer, others cooler. Some strawmen advocates point to cooling in some areas and say "ah ha, see -- no warming" as if that negates the larger global climate change problem. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
