If you haven't yet seen this geeky science teacher's You Tube video "How it All Ends", take a look (it's about 10 minutes). Even if you don't agree with his risk-management logic and ultimate conclusion (ahem, CG), it's still entertaining!
Here's his website.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I would have replaced the "Economic Harm" box with "Certain Increase in Human Suffering Worldwide", and would have replaced the GW box with "Uncertain Increase in Human Suffering Worldwide".
-CG
really? based on what economic and scientific projections? whose data or recommendations - both economists and scientists? and would you put the phrases "long-term" or "short-term" anywhere?
simply based my interpretation of "Economic Harm" meaning less accessibility of resources, higher prices, etc.. Human well-being is very closely related to the well-being of the economy. Most of the predicted bad effects on humans of global warming will be borne out via 'economic harm'. In choosing the 'economic harm box', we would be facing the same (or very similar) bad things that GW would present, just with more certainty. If that makes any sense. Anyway, I just didn't like his treatment of "the economy" as something not very closely related to human well-being.
-CG
CG, you need to get your own blog! I still think you're not considering the short- vs. -long-term effects. The long-term effects of GW are devastating and virtually irreversible, while the short-term effects of the economic stress of reducing CO2 are temporary and a lot less devastating. Losing jobs and not being able to afford a high quality of life is a lot better than losing the majority of the global food supply. The certainty of the two is about equal. Besides, there are ways to reduce CO2 w/out causing economic harm. Really.
Post a Comment