--- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > That's why it's important to weigh the costs of going down the Kyoto > road or whatever it is that the Gore-ists want us to do. > > I contend that the costs to tryng to prevent global warming far, far > outweigh the costs of doing nothing. > > Then let's look at the opportunity costs to going the Kyoto route or > whatever it is that the pro-global warming (or whatever you want to > call it) want us to do. > > It's analogous to those that advocate organic gardening at the cost > of 100 million who will die without the benefit of fertilizer and > all that.
All huge strawmen arguments (a form of logical fallacies), Shemp. Are you consciously using strawmen to be devious, or do you just not realize that you are using them and really see no other alternatives to the ones you raise? > I contend that the costs to tryng to prevent global warming far, far > outweigh the costs of doing nothing. Are there other steps possible aside from the implied total "prevention of global warming"? You are saying if total cessation of global wartming is not cost-effective, then the ONLY other possibility is to do nothing? If we can stop avoid half of the projected catastrophes with cost-effective investments, is that worth it. Of course it is. Why do you implicitly deny such with your strawman argumens. > Then let's look at the opportunity costs to going the Kyoto route or > whatever it is that the pro-global warming (or whatever you want to > call it) want us to do. Any alternatives to going the full Kyoto route? Kyoto is 7-years old, surely there is more advanced thinging since then on cost-effective measures to mitigatge large-scale global warming costs. Why your implicit "all or nothing" approach to everything? > It's analogous to those that advocate organic gardening at the cost > of 100 million who will die without the benefit of fertilizer and > all that. So its either total organic gardening world wide or no organic gardening? Has any in-between and incremental apporaches ever occurred to you? Re-read my prior points. It provides a clear framework for evaluating incremental, cost-effective, risk-adjusted, approaches to avoid costs of global warming. > > 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. > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
