Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tchocky
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by waste gate
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tchocky
I'm confused. Barring active interference, how could action like emissions reductions & recycling do more damage than doing nothing?
@ waste gate - A large part of global warming involves increased weather extremes and volatility. It's putting the planet on speed rather than a sunbed.
|
I'm not sure what your second statement means. |
Global warming is a misleading term. Climate change is more descriptive, although what is happening now is a definite rise in the average temperature of the planet. However, this doesnt mean that we'll all be sunbathing in Lapland any tiime soon. The rise in temperatures increasing global weather volatility, some of which is hot (drought in Australia) and some of which is cold (Upstate NY at the moment, the storms in Europe recently).
So it's getting warmer, but stormier too. |
[QUOTE]To my initial response regarding doing nothing I may have been vague. What we need is an unbiased cost/benefit analysis. Much like your response to the nuclear power response as to the transmission loss due to out of state nuclear power.
An off the head example would be; the farming industry will have to reduce the emissions from their harvesting equipment and still be able to provide food stuffs for the native population and send emergency aid to 'starving' nations in Africa or the Indian sub-continent, while continuing to pay for the things of life that will be affected by the increased cost home side.
QUOTE]
Can you respond to this?