On Jul 11, 1:43 pm, Tom Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 10, 8:53 am, "Alastair McDonald"
>
>
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Eric Swanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "globalchange" <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:43 PM
> > Subject: [Global Change: 1882] Re: To Improve the Economy Put a Price on
>
> > Climate Pollution
>
> > > Well, something like 1/3 of the food we eat depends on insects for
> > > pollination. There are other wild type bees out there, but they also
> > > have taken a hit. In my area, I've become intensely aware of the fact
> > > that there are almost no bees (including bumble bees or carpenter
> > > bees) foraging on the flowers. Bees love clover and the clover
> > > patches are nearly empty. That might seem to be a small thing, except
> > > that there also appears to be a big dieback in the butterfly
> > > population as well. Whether these changes are due to the spring
> > > weather and whether that weather is representative of climate change
> > > are big questions. There are other possible causes for the decline in
> > > the insect populations, such as pesticides, which makes it even more
> > > difficult to sort out the problem.
>
> > Could it be GM crops?
>
> > > My point is that there is much more to the adaption of man to his
> > > nitch than just the raw temperature range. It's obvious that man is a
> > > very adaptable creature, since we have survived under widely varying
> > > extremes in temperature. I hope the economists out there actually
> > > think outside the box of civilization to consider the facts of our
> > > relationships with nature when they do get around to considering the
> > > costs and benefits of climate change. I doubt they will be able to do
> > > this, since they aren't likely to focus down to the level of insects
> > > or bacteria. To me, that is a really scary aspect of our situation.
>
> > The point is that in a free (for all) economy there is nobody in charge, but
> > worse there is no one to enforce the rules. Therefore, the rules of decent
> > and prudent behavior might as well not exist. You are right to be worried.
> > We live in a world where only the strong and rich win!- Hide quoted text -
>
> By free economy, do you mean capitalism or anarchy? In the US,
> anarchy pretty much rules in the sphere of GHG emissions, except
> perhaps for a bit of future lawsuit fear. Better to put emissions
> under the typical property regulations of capitalism perhaps, could
> solve the problem that way.
What I am saying is that globalisation equals capitalism plus anarchy.
Global warming is not just an American problem. It is a global
problem. Therefore as long as America preaches globalisation then
there is no hope for the planet.
Paul's (Higgins) ideas that the reductions in emissions will not hurt
the economy may have been correct ten years ago, when a 50% reduction
would have sufficed. But now we in the rich world will have to see
our standard of living fall by 90%. If not, then Gaia will reduce the
global population by 90% for us.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
