Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I saw a couple of flaws. In his column A options, his first assumption that if we are not the cause of global warming and we take action the worst case is global depression. Then his second assumption that if we are the cause and we take action there is no mention of global depression. If the costs of taking action will lead to a global depression, that will happen regardless of the cause. This scenerio exists in two of his boxes.
|
The position as I understood it is: "Is GCC is going to occur withan effect on global economy/life as we know it" and "we try to make things better or don't"
GCC doesn't happen - we try to stop it - waste of money=depression
GCC happens - we try to stop it - money well spent, happy
and GCC doesn't happen, we don't try - no waste of money, happy
GCC happen, we don't try - apocalyptic reprecussions
I didn't interpret it as depression with costs, but depression with unnecessary costs. If money is wasted trying to stop something that isn't happening (or that we can't stop) then we could get a depression, but if the money is spent and GCC is 'stopped' (or we create an ecomony prepared for the future climate) then we are less likely to get a depression.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
The cause is not material to the question.
The real questions are - Is the globe warming? Can we do something about it? If we do something are the consequences of taking action better or worse than not taking action?
|
Exactly the point- the cause is not material; climate change will happen or it won't. Rational people will accept that a warming trend has been recently observed. Climate change takes place.
I'm not interested in this discussion becoming a debate on if or if not it is taking place and if or if not human activity is accelerating the (natural geological timeline scale) climate change.
The argument put forth in the video is that the risk of not taking action is extraordinary. Its a global prisoner's dilemma.