Keith Hudson wrote:
> I am fully aware of the reasons why politicians and bureaucrats of the
> Ministry of Agriculture decided to ignore the best advice in the case of
> Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD). (There are also other strong reasons in
> addition to those he cites, but I didn't want to complicate my account of
> FMD.)
Funny excuse for omitting the relevant background. (and my explanation was
less complicated, btw)
> However, the fact is that the opinion of the most eminent scientists was
> ignored and disaster has resulted.
This doesn't matter when economic greed overrules scientific advice anyway.
As with Kyoto... (Btw, I wouldn't be so sure that the few fossil-fuel
hacks you cited are "the most eminent scientists"...)
> I am also fully aware of the reasons why politicians and bureaucrats of the
> EEC have become persuaded by a dubious IPCC report.
It is misleading to portray the EU as the exception. On the contrary, the
IPCC is a U.N. body and the exception is a handful of CO2 rogue states
who oppose even the most modest CO2-reduction targets because they happen
to be the worst polluters.
> However, the fact is that the opinion of some of the most eminent
> scientists is being ignored and we do not know what the consequences might
> be if the Kyoto Protocol were carried out. At the very least it could cause
> political tensions between blocs which the world has not seen since the
> second world war.
On the contrary, the worst tensions (international and national) will
result from degrading environment and ever-worse weather extremes
(droughts/floods, storms, heatwaves, food shortages etc.).
You are overstating the efforts that would be necessary to implement the
modest reductions of the Kyoto protocol. The large polluters squander so
much energy that a reduction would easily be feasible. (Also remember
that a SUV consumes about 600% more fuel than the most economic car on
the market -- not to mention alternative propulsion vehicles..)
The resistance to Kyoto is due to economic egoism, not lack of feasibility.
> The reason why I mentioned the potential super-volcano at Yellowstone is
> that this is another possible danger to the human race. It has not been
> taken up by politicians so far because, unlike FMD and Kyoto, they can see
> no benefit in doing so.
The less malign explanation is that FMD and CO2 are *man-made* problems
that can also be solved by humans, whereas the super-volcano is neither
man-made, nor can much be done about it. And its eruption is less likely
than you being killed by a traffic accident, whereas FMD and CO2 are
already striking "here and now". Hence the different priorities.
Chris
