Hi Ray,
At 12:14 18/07/01 -0400, you wrote:
(REH)
<<<<
But systems thought requires that we think systematically and I don't
understand the principle that you are advocating. In music it does make a
difference where a major scale is placed but it is still a major scale.
The issue of global warming, pollution and the rise in skin cancer as a
result of a decline in the ozone is not in doubt and even if it was would
not a temperate mind indicate that it would be better to think
conservatively in the matter? Think about how the system is affected?
We are a system, the earth is a system and what is the difference between a
group of our cells working against us for their own survival and our doing
the same to the earth? One would hope that the difference would be
consciousness of the future generations need for an inheritance beyond
simple cash. If they spend all of their cash on oxygen bottles, what's
the point?
>>>>
I maintain that the Precautionary Principle is not yet applicable in this
case because, if the present weather changes are not due to the rise in CO2
(no-one is doubting the rise itself) but are a natural fluctuation (so far,
well within the range of natural changes in history), then the effect on
the American economy (if the US accepts Kyoto) would be unnecessary and
damaging. From what I read there are sufficient numbers of eminent
climatologists who are not yet convinced by the evidence.
Now whether you applaud the growth of the American economy (and their
businessmen) or not, the fact is that it is the main economic pivot of the
world at present on which the economies of Europe, Japan, South-East Asia
and China vitally depends. If the American economy is depressed by
Kyoto-imposed regulations which turn out to be unnecessary then the
consequences could be enormous and long-lasting. I suggest that we don't
personalise the issue by saying that it is the greed of this or that
particular businessman, or the nasty motivations of this or that particular
industry, which is delaying action.
At the present time it looks as though the American economy is hanging on
by the flimsiest of threads -- the continuing high spend of ordinary
consumers. If the latter decide that their jobs might be in danger and
decide to reduce spending and pay off their credit cards as a priority,
then there's little doubt that the American economy -- and the rest of the
world -- will sink into a depression lasting for a year or two at least.
Imposing Kyoto proposals (once again which might then turn out to be
unnecessary) on top of this would make the situation far worse and much
longer lasting.
As you'll know, if man-made CO2 are the cause of present climate change,
the present Kyoto proposals will only delay the rise of CO2 for a year or
two. Much more draconian action would also have to be taken. We badly need
another year or two of accelerated research and scientific evaluation at
the present time before a proportionate response can be started. Actually,
if the evidence conclusively shows that climate changes are man-made, then
the populations in developed countries are then much more likely to respond
positively to the most extreme action.
(REH)
<<<<
As for American's "leading the way", the issue is power. The part of the
nation that has to do with the greatest accumulation of wealth built on the
use of natural resource industries that have government subsidies (oil
depletion allowance for example or a 300 million dollar cap on liability
for Nuclear Power) or cheap land built on 19th century manifest destiny
policies towards mining interests -- these individuals will only "lead the
way" kicking and screaming.
They are the ones that would encourage their own children to eat beef
because of their own beef stocks or to go into shark infested waters
because they own the beach. They are not developers but exploiters. I
know them first hand from the lead and zinc mines on the "protected" Indian
Reserves. They could almost make you agree with Stalin about the Kulaks.
Remember Rupert Murdoch states with a straight face that his news
organizations do not have a bias. I assume that such a statement is
sincere since simple lies are no basis for discussion.
If that is the Glassman of the Cato Institute then his agenda is to do away
with taxes and kill the "not-for-profit" industries like culture, health,
education and all of the charities. He has no sense of connection to the
rest of us other than as individual contracts. Complexity represents an
opportunity for exploitation in that system of thinking. His Masters
are the Koch brothers who are in a massive family fight over their father's
estate built upon mineral exploitation. I point this out simply to say
that they and he are not without conflicts of interest when talking about
these things. Sort of like Darman's "sell them sunglasses and sunshade"
as an answer to the ozone hole.
>>>>
I'm sad that you are demonising the above. They are acting in an
exploitative way no differently from mankind's actions throughout his
existence. For example, as soon as man invented the atlatl (the sprung
throwing spear) at about 15,000BC he then started wiping out all the
largest grazing animal species throughout the world and then, when the
atlalt was refined into the bow-and-arrow, followed up by wreaking
devastation on the medium-sized species. This devastation was so complete
that we were forced into large-scale agriculture which caused the
population rise and the widespread poverty throughout the world we are now
suffering from.
Of course, greedy people, monopolists, polluters and so forth have to be
restrained but let's not categorise them as "evil" and so forth as though
they belonged to an alien species. This name- and label-calling falls into
the in-group out-group trap which is a consequence of our tribal nature.
It's so easy to do this and it's really no different from the sort of nasty
racial, ethnic or religious categorisation which causes so much war and
suffering. I'm saddened when discussion takes this form because the real
facts become so easily obscured.
We need a lot more careful research and modelling of climate change and I'm
sure that a great deal will be achieved in the next year or two. I'm sure
that the powerful countries of the world will be able to lead (and if
necessary impose) the sort of changes that will be necessary. This will
almost certainly include massive investment in solar power. When even
partially exploited, this would dwarf the energy contribution of fossil
fuels and, of course, produce no CO2.
Keith Hudson
___________________________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
