Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Durnavich
That's the idea. Instead of spending $180 billion a year on Kyoto to lower CO2 emissions right now, which will accomplish next to nothing over the next century at great cost, focus on the problem areas directly.
<Snip>
Cities like New Orleans were disasters waiting to happen regardless of global warming. Kyoto wants us to spend the money instead on lowering CO2, which will have only a marginal effect, yet will leave the coastlines unprotected. If we want to care about the welfare of people, we have to get our priorities in order.
|
See, there's a problem with that idea. Two, actually.
1. 180 billion, or however much the number actually turns out to be, is a drop in the bucket compared to what's needed to reinforce worldwide coastlines from even a moderate rise in sea level, even assuming only the most conservative estimates are true.
2. There's no evidence a Kyoto-like plan will have have "only a marginal effect." There is no evidence that sea levels will only rise a few feet. There are, at present, nothing but vague guesses.
So it's not a case of either-or, tastes great/less filling, but a combination of gathering further information, improving economy and infrastructure, reducing poverty, and reducing CO2 emissions by both making more efficient use of exising energy sources and transferring to more renewable sources.