On 2/8/07, Gareth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 9, 7:24 am, "Michael Tobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The point that Indonesia needs to implement flood control seems
> > totally beside the point that the world needs to make sure that the
> > coal stays in the ground until someone comes up with a way to capture
> > and dispose of the carbon. I see not the remotest practical reason why
> > these questions have much overlap at the policy level. I can't imagine
> > the purpose of the linkage.
>
> Pielke's paper is Lomborgian in that it establishes a false dichotomy.
> Mitigation has "prevented" adaptation, so you can become a champion of
> adaptation as a counterbalance to the nastiness involved in
> mitigation.
I agree that Pielke sets up a false dichotomy. I am amazed that anyone takes
it seriously.
I don't agree that this is Lomborgian. Lomborg comes to coherent conclusions
based on coherent, widely shared assumptions. I think the assumptions are
wrong, but that's another matter. I am not at all sure that his conclusions
are wrong given his assumptions.
Pielke, as far as I can tell, is just saying something ridiculous. It is not
the case that the entire world can only think about one thing at a time.
mt
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
