Jim Torson wrote:
> Would you agree with Bjorn Lomborg that climate change is a long
> range problem so we shouldn't worry about it now:
I don't think the Lomborgian point of view is in principle invalid, but
the extent to which he apparently has to cherry-pick to make his point
suggests that in fact his argument is rather weaker than he would like
to admit. I think the problem may be best presented as an essentially
moral/ethical one: we want to leave the planet in a not-too-dissimilar
state to that in which we found it, because this is what we think is the
right thing to do, not because any particular economic analysis mandates
that it is the economically optimal, rational decision. There are also
plenty of other good reasons for reducing fossil fuel use, and many of
them are probably stronger than the climate change argument (like: the
cheap oil is going to run out, and accessing it requires us to pump
trillions of dollars into countries that are extremely hostile,
whereupon we then need to periodically go and install new pet dictators
in these countries and hope they don't turn nasty too soon....and I
could go on about the largest cause of death in young adult males in the
UK [probably elsewhere] being car crashes, and the obesity epidemic...).
James
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
