[LINK] Pascal's Wager applied to GLobal CLimate Change

Craig Sanders cas at taz.net.au
Sat Jan 19 08:28:58 AEDT 2008


On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 09:46:02AM +0100, Kim Holburn wrote:
> Here are 2 comments I have made on that video (anti-pascal's wager?):
>
> The costs of responding to global warming:
>
> 1) In many ways the costs associated with responding to global
> warming would probably actually save us money and make businesses
> more efficient.  (Using less oil more efficiently?) So they may not
> actually end up being costs.

true, but they WILL be costs to those that actually matter - the coal
and oil industries.


> 2) The other thing about the costs of responding to global warming
> is that the main effects, especially initially, would fall onto the
> big energy companies. ie people might use less fossil fuel. While
> big energy might not in the long run lose out, they would certainly
> have to change a lot of things about the way they do business and in
> the short term their profit might just fall. This is why they are so
> resistant to the idea of global warming/climate change.

and no government (even those that aren't in their pockets) dares to
threaten or even annoy them.

hence the status quo will continue until the planet dies.


this is why we have nonsensical time-wasting distractions like carbon
credit trading rather than a simple tax on carbon output.

OK, carbon trading might be better than nothing, but it's not much
better. we need to reduce CO2 production, not allow it to continue
as long as someone, somewhere accepts money(*) in return for a vague
promise that they'll make some kind of unaudited, unguarranteed attempt
to "offset" the CO2.



(*) a tiny fraction of what a real effort to reduce CO2 would cost.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>

BOFH excuse #325:

Your processor does not develop enough heat.



More information about the Link mailing list