On 10/6/06, raghu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Any so-called benefit, no matter how large or slight produces other
> detrimental environmental and societal problems that literally
> overwhelm *any* accrued social benefit, and it's becoming more obvious,
> even to the most casual observer, every day.
>
One might interpret this to mean that you are opposed to *any* change.
-raghu.
No... I'm suggesting a serious application of social cost-benefit
analysis to the situation.
...and any time any ...party... *needs* hydrocarbon fuels.
This should have been the case from the very inception of a
petroleum-based economy, but guess what? It wasn't. (go figure...)
What *are* the economics of genetic damage to an Indigenous community?
Don't answer that (If there IS an answer that wouldn't be... callous)
The Navajo and other groups receive minmal compensation, and NONE of
the electricity created
by Four Corners
<http://www.americanphoto.co.jp/photosearch/Previews/PLX025193.jpg>.
(The photo looks like the smoking stacks of a concentration camp...
and "reservations " are that.)
If one looks at where the highest per-capita energy use is... Well,
we'd be putting LNG regasification terminals at the San Diego tourist
wharf, not Baja.
How about YOUR back yard? Your children?
Apex North Carolina... Right *NOW* (petrochemical disaster in progress)
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/06/us/07chemcnd.html>
To put it in another way: "Trading "Carbon Futures" won't save yo soul brotha!
Nor will poisoning communities for such... temporal... gains.
Say amen!
--
Leigh
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.leighm.net
