Re: population growth & physics ed

["Rick & Bea Tarara" <rbtarara@sprynet.com>]

Several comments:  The phrase 'virtually everyone' has nothing to do
with 'virtue' although L Palmer tries to turn the phrase into a
mocking of those few who don't agree and thus weaken the argument.  If
those of us who would counsel a very hard and serious look at how to
reduce the use of fossil fuels _as soon as possible_ are 'chicken
littles' then I contend that the L Palmers of the world are the
proverbial ostriches with their heads buried in the sand.  One needs
only drive into Los Angles or Denver to see that there are OTHER
benefits to reducing our reliance on the fossil fuels than just the
effects on global weather.  The kinds of plans that would cut back on
fossil fuels are not the precipitous or draconian measures L Palmer
characterizes them as.  To be sure, economics IS a MAJOR
consideration.  It would take 50-100 years under such plans to make a
50% decrease in fossil fuel use.   IF the most pessimistic of the
global warming predictions should happen to prove correct, IT WOULD be
necessary for drastic and economically disasterous actions.  Part of
the 'insurance' of cutting back now is to preclude the need for such
harmful actions.  As for insurance--while L Palmer may not live on a
flood plane or near the shore--many do and many DON'T carry insurance.
 Without a federal government like the U.S. that bails such people out
(with everybody else's money) such people would be ruined.  While I
understand the argument that IF THE RISK  IS SMALL why 'insure', in
this case there are so many OTHER benefits (cleaner air, less
radioactivity[C14], less political and economic dependence on foreign
powers, etc.) plus the REAL UNCERTAINTY of the risk to global warming
that 'insurance' does make sense.

Why Mr. Burke did 'sell' the program to PBS, I feel it unfair to
suggest he somehow could profit from scaring people about global
warming.  Such an attitude is beyond cynical--IMO.

Rick Tarara
----------
> From: Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>
>
> One reason might be that the cost of not doing so is greater than
the
> likely benefit to be gained. That is the rational approach in my
view.
> One assumes risk every moment of one's life. The key to living well
is
> to be able to evaluate such risks. Thus an asthmatic might think it
> unwise to climb Everest, but an experienced mountaineer might deem
it
> unthinkable not to try. They have different assessments of the
relative
> magnitudes of risk and benefit. Following Burke's suggestion both
would
> be unwise to get out of bed, for the risk in doing so is
nonnegligible.
> "Virtually everyone agrees" is a gross misstatement of fact. I
don't,
> for example, but I guess that means I'm not virtuous, er, virtual. I
do
> agree that the effect of 100-fold increase in atmospheric CO2 would
> likely heat up the Earth, but some experts who have examined the
> question are unsure of the *sign* of the temperature change which
might
> be caused by a small increase. Do they, too, lack virtue?
>
> Burke is an entertainer. What he does, he does to sell. Let's not go
> overboard because he says the ship is sinking. He may also be
selling
> liferafts.
>
> > We insure ourselves from lots
> > of other hazards so why not take some out some insurance concerning
> > global warming by cutting back on green-house emissions as soon as
> > possible.
>
> I believe the dictum is "Think globally, act locally". Will you be
> giving up your automobile? Giving up using electrical energy? Giving
> up what your ancestors and fellow citizens have worked so long and
> so hard to achieve for you?
>
> I don't carry flood or earthquake insurance; I judge them not to be
> worth the price. That's all it is, a value judgement. The cost of
> reducing CO2 emissions would be immense. I want to see a prospect of
> comparably immense benefit resulting from doing so. Insurance works
> by compensating a small number of injured parties by pooling the
> contributions of a much larger number of luckier folk. Insurance is
> scarcely an appropriate metaphor for this, since we are all in the
> same boat. The US did not sign on to the Rio accord on reduction of
> CO2 emissions.  Bush's scentific advisors told him that the risk was
> not yet clear, or at least clear enough to justify draconian
measures.
> Other nations signed, but last I heard that was all show; they have
> not done anything hard yet. Of course Bush should have signed; it
> would have helped his campaign, and as you see he paid the price of
> being honest.
>
> > The film describes a Dutch plan from around 1989 that could
> > be a model for doing so.  Other salient points of the film describe
> > how the dilution of salt in the North Atlantic (by the escape of an
> > ice age lake in Canada) caused an 8-10 degree drop in the space of
> > only 100 years--point being that very large temperature swings CAN
> > happen very quickly.  It is the effects of the oceans vis-a-vis
global
> > temperatures that are not well understood, but under SOME models
can
> > lead to cascading effects that could cause very rapid increases in
> > temperature.  Once again a central point here is that reducing
carbon
> > emissions NOW can't hurt but not doing so COULD be disasterous!
>
> Chicken Little is my guiding parable here, I'm afraid. I think you
> overdramatize given the present state of our knowledge.
>
> Leigh