"Rob Jacob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Recently a colleague made this observation: politicians were able to
> successfully pass legislation restricting the -- separate -- emissions
> that caused acid rain and the destruction of the ozone layer. And it
> didn't take an IPCC like process to convince people. He was starting
> his career at the time of the first problem (acid rain) and
> characterized the science as less certain then what we have now for
> CO2. Yet people took solid action.
>
> I have some ideas on what's different now but want to hear your
> thoughts first.
IMO the most important difference is the pervasiveness of oil consumption.
It quite simply affects every aspect of modern living. Proposing dramatic
changes in its usage is a Big Deal. It is secondly the single largest
sector of the world economy, ignoring illegal drug trafficking. This means
the opponents to restrictions or taxes or govèt intervention in general are
very powerful.
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
