[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: fHuman vs. natural influences on the environment
charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>In article <4ubisq$a30_001@watstar.uwaterloo.ca>,
> DGOURLEY@CHEMICAL.uwaterloo.ca (Dana Gourley) wrote:
>>I feel like throwing in my two cents worth:
>>The responce time of the atmosphere would be very critical
>to people trying to
>>study it. A short responce time would speed up the results,
>and there would be
>>no greenhouse debate.
>>
>>It seems to me the critical problem with a long response
>>time is that it impares theoretical modeling of the environment.
>>Without a good model, we really are flying blind into uncharted
>>territory. That in my opinion is the strongest argument for
>>taking action now to curb greenhouse emisions(sp?). I
>>wouldn't want to be arround if we find out 40 years from now
>>that the historical averages are only showing a locally stable
>>position and that we have provided a forcing function that drove
>>us far enough away from this equilibrium that the new local
>>stability point is something like Venus.
>
>It seems to me that there are at least two "camps" of opinion
>here.
"At least" is the key phrase here. You may want to spend some
time at some point ferreting out those other camps besides the
two you mention and responding to their views. Cage represents
one and I represent yet another.
>One group (myself included) sees nothing wrong with
>collecting the data and assuming that we will not do lasting
>harm to the environment during the time that it takes to
>understand enough about the problem to properly fix it.
I think we understand enough now to begin fixing it, so why wait?
Since the problem stems from greenhouse gases, and we can reduce
our emissions of those gases, how long do you feel that study
is required? (Not that I'm opposed to continuing research on
the subject, I just think that enough is known now to begin acting.)
>The
>other group seems to be of the opinion that zero emissions,
>zero risk, zero tolerance, etc., is the goal that we should
>be setting for ourselves. I take exception to this second
>group's opinion.
Me too. Who has been espousing the theory that it's possible to
achieve zero impact on the environment and zero risk? And why
don't I seem to ever see them posting here? All I see are people
who think we should reduce CO2 emissions.
>There are acceptable levels of risk,
>emissions, etc., that we can and should establish in our
>activities. Zero risk and zero emissions are a practical
>impossibility, and will result in a lot of miserable people
>demanding things that can't be delivered. It's time to look
>for goals that are more achievable and practical than this.
I'll endorse this. Motherhood and apple pie also. Unfortunately,
that's quite far from agreeing with your thesis that climate
change needs to be studied to death before we do anything to
reduce the possibility that it might occur.
Tom Gray
Director of Communications
American Wind Energy Association
PS Support renewable energy! Visit the Electronic Lobbyist For
Renewable Energy Web Site:
http://www.netcom.com/~stevie2/budget.html
Interested in energy and the environment? The free electronic
edition of _Wind Energy Weekly_ reports on energy-related
environmental issues, energy policy, and wind industry trade
news. The electronic edition normally runs about 10kb in length.
For a subscription, send me an e-mail request. Please include
information on your position, organization, and reason for
interest in the publication.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Gray <tomgray@econet.org>
Follow-Ups:
References: