Re: Weather Unrecovery; Photo Recovery
- From: Jasper Janssen <jasper@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:09:11 +0100
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:20:03 -0700, Robert Uhl <eadmund42@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Jasper Janssen <jasper@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
There is the small question of cost. If global warming costs $100
million but preserving the current temperature costs $100 billion,
it's kinda a no-brainer to let 'er warm, no?
It's kinda a no-brainer to suggest that that's the cost of global
warming. It's probably closer to 100 trillion than 100 million.
I wasn't suggesting anything--I was simply pointing out that if doing
nothing costs X and doing something costs Y net and Y > X then it makes
no sense to do something.
it's rather hard to put values on all the numbers, but yes. This is not
news.
On the subject of global warming, I'm extremely dubious that a) the cost
of doing nothing is all that much, b) that the cost of doing something
would be anything reasonable, c) that anyone involved has the slightest
hint of honesty or competence.
You can debate at length about whether the temperature will go up and if
so, if limiting CO2 output would slow it, sure. It's rather hard to argue
about the fact that a few degrees rise in average temperature has
absolutely staggeringly massive costs.
Jasper
.
- References:
- Re: Weather Unrecovery; Photo Recovery
- From: stevo
- Re: Weather Unrecovery; Photo Recovery
- From: Robert Uhl
- Re: Weather Unrecovery; Photo Recovery
- From: Jasper Janssen
- Re: Weather Unrecovery; Photo Recovery
- From: Robert Uhl
- Re: Weather Unrecovery; Photo Recovery
- Prev by Date: Re: Weather Unrecovery; Photo Recovery
- Next by Date: Re: Weather Unrecovery; Photo Recovery
- Previous by thread: Re: Weather Unrecovery; Photo Recovery
- Next by thread: Re: Weather Unrecovery; Photo Recovery
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|