View Single Post
Old 05-27-2009, 04:55 AM
tannerwaterbury's Avatar
tannerwaterbury tannerwaterbury is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 456

Originally Posted by horatio View Post
For all you who believe that the Earth is flat, that we don't descend from apes, that George Soros caused the financial crisis or that there is no climate change.
Suppose you are right and the unlikely scenario that CO2 has no effect upon the climate is true. All the countermeasures like CO2-taxes or reforestation will have no bad effects:

CO2 taxes substitute conventional labour and capital income taxes, so switching taxes makes no extra bad effect upon business. Furthermore, it creates incentives to invest into new energy technologies, which is not good per se, as the old machines can no more be used anymore, yet in a recession like right now, any incentive to invest is welcome. Check, no bad effect.
What about forestation in a world where overpopulation and food scarcity are big problems? True, the land for trees could be used to plant food even in the other climate heating scenario. But coal and oil runs out in a few decades, so why not plant some trees as energy source? Check, no bad effect.

It's a situation with asymmetric risks: doing something against climate change is good (I think the good effects of "demand side" measures like CO2 taxes or cap-and-trade and "supply side" measures like building trees to convert CO2 into oxygen are obvious)) while doing nothing is bad. Doing something although climate change does not exist is neutral while doing nothing is neutral too. Good or neutral by activity, neutral or bad by passivity.
To use an analogy, if you see thick smoke coming from the neighbour house, do you take a stroll and take a good look until you see flames or do you call the fire station?
Well now i dont think people are saying that there is no climate change, I think what some people are trying to say is that they dont believe that man has the capabilities YET to change the climate. Also lets think about this, if we try and limit OUR CO2 output (which I find ridiculous in the utmost sense) we really wouldnt be affecting the rest of the output caused by nature. And another thing, everyone is saying that CO2 is bad for US, but have we all considered wether it might be good for other things, like PLANTLIFE?! There has been a study taken at a University (forgot which one, will get that as soon as I remember) in which 2 greenhouses are to be exposed to certain amounts of CO2, the one with the smaller amount of CO2 in the air showed below average growth while the other greenhouse with Above normal amounts showed ABUNDANT growth, and not to mention the fact that there appeared to be more Oxygen within that one greenhouse than within the other. This PROVES without a shadow of a doubt that CO2 is good for this Planet, and honestly, we cant do a damn thing to curve its output one bit. Nature OVERTAKES what man does. The number one outputter of CO2 is NOT man, but WATER. Man emits less than 2 PERCENT of the natural output of CO2. So i guess if you figured out by now, i am a CO2 supporter.

UPDATE: Found the link to that CO2 Greenhouse experiment.


Last edited by tannerwaterbury : 05-27-2009 at 05:03 AM.
Reply With Quote