"Alastair McDonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> It seems to me that saying there is no solution is no more
>> constructive than saying there is no problem.
>
> I am not saying there is no solution, only that it will not be applied in
> time.
>
>> I would rather say that the physics and the economics of the problem
>> are much more easily surmountable than the politics of the problem, or
>> that we will have a hard time coming close to achieving an optimal
>> policy in the foreseeable future. That is anything but a reason to
>> give up.
>
> The only way will get the politics sorted out is if everyone realizes that
> we are doomed. Dr Gerhaush wrote "If we had 10 years to prevent
> humanity from being exterminated in 100 years time, I am sure we'd
> do what's necessary, even if that involved a lot of pain, never mind
> electoral cycles." But so long as everyone is in denial, then no action
> will be taken.
But Alastair, what action do you expect people to take if doom is
unavoidable?
> If only you would agree that we are in imminent danger then I
> could stop saying "We are all doomed" :-)
These are strikingly different messages, really.
Coby
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
