the
> response of the controller will continue to be especially sluggish.
I am not sure why a temperature or concentration target would all by
itself change that dynamic, it might even be argued that because
governments like say Canada's are perfectly happy to have a lofty
target without having a policy to achieve it, the targets might
actually make the response more sluggish.
> It is, of course, no good avoiding a CO2-driven catastrophe by
> creating an economics-driven catastrophe. There are other horsemen of
> the apocalypse waiting in the wings as well.
Some people argue that there can't be an economics driven catastrophe,
because renewables and efficiency are cheap enough already that a
switch over a few decades would only mean slower growth.
That's fine, except in so far as it's not just eco-systems that are
complex and hard to predict, human society is also. I have to think of
the fuel protests in Britain a few years ago, which surprised me at
the time.
If the burdens are felt to be distributed unfairly, there may be a
violent backlash, and a fair distribution of the burden isn't
something easily negotiated.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
