In response to my
>>No, I'm sure that capitalism does not need any help ruining the economy,
>>but environmentalism might be providing an intellectual rationalisation
>>of that.
>
>Which of course is why the most capitalist nation in the world refuses to
>grapple with the most important environmental issue we face? Eh?
European countries attacking the US decision are capitalist countries, too.
> you propose a standard of living measured merely
>by access to goods. If that ain't a capitalist definition I can't imagine
>what is.
Forgive my scepticism, but it seems a little convenient to big business to turn round to the staff and say, oh by the way, there's more to life than mere wealth.
I agree with Yoshie:
In message <p05001914b6f4168924da@[140.254.114.190]>, Yoshie Furuhashi
<furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> writes
>I also believe that socialism will allow us to manage natural
>resources better, but better resource management in a socialist
>society doesn't necessarily mean that less resources will be used.
>In fact, the opposite is likely the case. "UNDP Administrator Gus
>Speth said Friday an estimated 1.5 to 2.0 billion people, out of a
>total world population of 5.8 billion, continue to live without
>electricity. And about 2.0 billion people still use fuel-wood and
>animal dung for their cooking" (at
><http://library.wustl.edu/~listmgr/devel-l/Mar1997/0041.html>). Even
>with the most efficient technology possible & emphasis upon renewable
>sources, providing at the very least 4 billion more people with gas,
>electricity, etc. will definitely involve greater use of natural
>resources.
In message <NDBBKPODIHENIECLLPBIKEFJCBAA.kmack at dimensional.com>, Kenneth
Mack <kmack at dimensional.com> writes
>It may well be true that policy types worked on the final report
>but it is also true that ALL work done was reviewed by scientists before it
>went to publication.
I think the question raised was 'how many scientists'? 2500 as claimed, or 80 as the WSJ claimed. Since nobody has refuted their claim, I think it stands. Further, I'm not aware that nature's laws are determined by vote.
>It is not faith that tells me that increased levels of GHGs can
>trap more energy, it is physics. If it is NOT trapping more energy then
>there needs to be a mechanism to explain it.
What's at issue is whether GHG emissions are responsible for global warming. To show that you have to show more than that it could be the reason, but also that it is. There is a quantitative question here.
>There may well be a mechanism
>to explain it, what is it? And if so, why the warmer temperatures?
As is well known climate change predates human industry by about as long as there has been a climate.
-- James Heartfield