Michael Tobis wrote:
> Are you suggesting that the economy should not be constrained to avoid
> a change larger than 85 C in the global mean if it should seem
> inclined to head that way?
Since it's not going to happen, I think it is reasonable to ask what is
the purpose of such a "target" (or even "limit")? Is it just a
rhetorical device to steer the debate in a particular direction? Would
you support Govt action to set this "limit"?
Having just read Stoat's new post, I should also raise again the
question of whether any serious attempt to restrict carbon emissions
could potentially result in "dangerous interference" with the global
economy.
Returning to the "bridge" analogy, if there was a trivial way of
building a better bridge at negligible cost, then of course it would be
sensible to do it. But in the real world, where resources are limited,
people _do_ build dodgy bridges in poor countries. Even in Japan, let
along Turkey, people fake earthquake resistance certification for their
buildings.
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
