Well said. I think the presentation here is laudable and I am
therefore hastening to laud it.
I am also happy to have an occasion to agree with Heiko. The tendency
these days to proceed contentiously rather than with honest respect
for the valid points of one's opposition is at the core of our current
difficulties.
Heiko, perhaps you will be interested in Al Gore's recent book on
related matters, "The Assault on Reason".
mt
On 5/30/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've noticed something interesting about the way trade-offs are
> discussed in the environmental debate. Lomborg likes economic growth,
> and wants low carbon taxes. He therefore argues that economic growth
> is a necessary pre-condition for environmental imrpovements, and that
> there are important trade-offs between high carbon taxes or Kyoto and
> economic development, ie we can have either an inconsequential Kyoto
> or clean drinking water for a billion.
>
> On the other hand, conservationists who happen to like polar bear
> habitat, or the preservation of ocean eco-systems, argue that, no
> there are no trade-offs here, really, the preservation of eco-systems
> is a necessary pre-condition for human welfare and economic activity.
> If there are trade-offs, they are ones between laziness (not changing
> to an energy efficient light bulb) or egomania (say wanting powerful
> cars) and the end of the world, as we know it.
>
> In other words, there either are no trade-offs, where we'd have to
> give up one thing to have another, or they are so damn obvious that
> any sane person would know what to painlessly make do without.
>
> I do wonder how much of this is rhetorical, and how much it is based
> in fact. Are there really no hard choices to be made?
>
> To the Lomborgists I say, is it really true that we couldn't afford
> clean drinking water, if we do Kyoto? If it's really such a good deal,
> why not finance it from say reduced military or Western social
> security expenditure?
>
> And can we really say across the board that there's no trade-off
> between economic growth and protecting species habitats?
>
> To the conservationists I say, how do you know that ocean
> acidification is a major menace to human welfare? You are sure that
> it's not wishful thinking driving your arguments, and that the desire
> to protect habitat for its own sake is influencing your thinking on
> how important these habitats really are for human welfare?
>
> Couldn't it be that we actually do have a choice between some
> substantial extra human welfare, and major changes in eco-systems?
> That it's neither the case that extra growth will in and of itself
> protect the eco-systems, or that eco-system impacts will be such to
> make growth impossible?
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
