On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Jim Torson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, my fundamental message is that the climate debate has got two very big
> flaws in it. Number one, it assumes that this is going to cost us money.
> This is a fantastic economic opportunity.
This is impossible.
I don't know if "money" is even the right metric, and I don't know if
it will cost us **very much** under a reasonable metric, but it will
certainly cost us **something** under any metric that isn't
hallucinatory.
Logically speaking an optimal strategy with a constraint will always
yield a result inferior to or in the best case equal to the
unconstrained equivalent. Because greenhouse forcing is a constraint,
a constraint cannot constitute good news for the society at large
compared to an equivalent situation lacking the constraint, though of
course clever individuals may (and should be encouraged to) take
advantage of it.
mt
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
