Andrew Dessler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> My view of why climate change is different is that it's a harder, more
> expensive problem. Thus, there's a lot more incentive for people to
> come up with reasons to do nothing.
The story I've heard is this: the real difference is that DuPont (who
were playing the role that the oil and coal industry does nowadays over
climate change, and that the tobacco industry did over smoking)
developed an effective alternative to CFCs. Suddenly, far from being an
imposition with economic downside, restrictions gave them a new
worldwide market to exploit (maybe even a monopoly protected by patents,
though that is a guess). The US administration changed its attitude
overnight.
It's only 3rd hand at best though and I don't think I've seen it written
down, so perhaps the tale has grown a bit in the re-telling...
The moral of the story would presumably be that we need to give the oil
industry a monopoly on solar panels, or something like that.
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
