> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Andrew Crystall > Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 1:29 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: RE: This is not a False Alarm... > > On 11 Apr 2007 at 10:09, Dan Minette wrote: > > > In other areas, however, such long term thinking would be costly. > Japan's > > It's not about future technologies, it's about using the greener > alternatives avaliable today. > > > You stated that, given the technology we have now, the cost of going > green > > has dropped from 50 trillion to 35 trillion. My counter is that, given > such > > No, I'm saying that the 50 billion figure is inflated, because it > assumes zero savings from using todays green technologies.
What savings? In what areas are green technologies more cost effective? The estimates that I've seen try to incorporate savings for things like new planes being more fuel efficient. I'd be more than willing, heck I'd be very interested, in trying to look at the cost benefit numbers. > And will drop, if anything. Without micro-G, you cannot make cost- > efficient solar pannels. Solar heaters are something else entirely, > and are not doing as badly, but have a lesser impact. And large scale micro-gee being cost effective will require an unanticipatable breakthrough. > Biofuel? Um, try "Nuclear". Nuclear should certainly be part of the solution. From my perspective, I'd argue that all new electrical power plants need to be nuclear. We agree that nuclear power is green. I just didn't see it as a newly developed option. Also, I have to admit, since I've discussed this so many times with folks who believe that solar and wind and biomass and 200 mpg carburetors would be the solution if only those corporations wouldn't be selfishly preventing it, my instinctive reaction is to not think of nuclear when a debate partner mentions green. But, I do know that's a point on which we agree. > > > Yes, I'm eco-realist, but I've never thought that in the end we will > > > have a soloution. This is what I believe is the answer to Fermi's > > > Paradox, quite frankly. It is quite clear that our government and > > > legal systems are not even remotely in step with the environmental > > > and societal changes... > > > > My argument is that, using present day technology, the cost of stopping > > global warming will be larger than the cost of cutting it as we can and > > adapting to the rest. You seem to indicate that the cost of the latter > is > > the end of the human race. Nothing I see from reasonable sources, such > as > > scientific bodies, the UN report, etc. indicates that there is any risk > of > > that. > > The just-in-time, consumer society of today is a fragile construct, > based on supply lines which global warming will cut, How will supply lines be cut? >and on labour who will not be able to spare effort from their attempts to >save their own countries... But, large areas of the world will benefit from the warming too. Siberia and Canada will become vast areas in which a lot of food can be grown. I've seen costs in the 10 trillion dollar range for global warming....over the next 100 years. While high, it's not as high as 50 trillion.....which would have to be spent over a much shorter period of time. Why wouldn't society just adapt? We both know that global warming won't hit in one day, month, year, or even decade. It will be a drain on the world economy, but I don't see how it would cause social collapse. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
