[Rhodes22-list] Merry Christmas, Mark P

[DCLewis1 at aol.com]

In a message dated 12/25/2006 11:25:07 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
flybrad at gmail.com writes:

The  inconvenient truth about Al Gore's vision, now that
he's through inventing  the internet, is that he ignores economic reality.
Let's assume Al and  Company are correct, (and they may be) their solutions
ignore that the  Chinese are agressively pursuing raw material worldwide,
especially  oil.  If all three hundred million of us Americans quit using
internal  combustion engines, it wouldn't offset the 1.2 billion Chinese
driving  newer and bigger cars.  Then there's the Indians, not to mention  all
the other Third Worlders who can't wait to get their hands on a Honda.  Being
kind to the environment is only common sense.  Destroying our  economy, or at
least seriously hampering its competiveness in the world  marketplace, makes
no sense. 


 
These are excellent points, global warming is a hard problem that  might 
entail economic sacrifices and hamper competitiveness, and besides we  can't solve 
it unilaterally.  To hell with it.  Suck it up guys, if  you die breathing 
the foul air, or are flooded as the result of arctic  melt, if you lack for food 
because the arctic conveyor no longer  delivers nutrients to the Atlantic to 
sustain the fish and crustaceans,  if global warming were to cause droughts 
and enhance the spread of deserts  with consequent food shortages,  well  that's 
just tough.  We  simply can't hamper competitiveness in the world 
marketplace.   Real  men don't complain, and those that do are probably communists or 
liberals - and  we all know what that means.
 
Look, there are probably a gazillion bucks to be made in developing the  
technology to help solve the global warming problem - Toyota (a Japanese  company) 
established that pretty clearly with it's Prius.  One might  hope that the 
American business community would be alert to the global warming  problem, see 
it as an opportunity, and constructively work  to find a solution to the 
problem.  Or they could step back from the  problem and consider whether they have 
asked exactly the right questions while  pondering the joint ethical 
implications of  global warming, world hunger,  and shifts in the earth's magnetic 
poles.  What'll it be?  The  economic reality is that there is a ton of money to be 
made developing and  selling the technology that will address global warming 
issues.  Ask anyone  connected to the nuclear power industry whether the tide 
has changed after the  past 20+ years.  The entire reason nuclear power is now 
acceptable to  the general 
American public is that they have finally realized nuc power doesn't  
contribute to global warming.  From my perspective global warming is a  problem, it's 
also a major business opportunity, and I distinctly remember  taking and 
passing Econ 101.
 
I give Gore a lot of credit for focusing the public's attention on the  
problem.  I once thought he was a sanctimonious jerk, but he's proved me  wrong; 
he's tried to lead on a major national issue in a constructive way  while most 
of our other ex-national political leadership have just gone on  extended 
holidays after they left office. There are many thousands of other  people that 
have worked on the global warming issue, but Gore's been able to  focus the 
public's attention and that's probably a good thing.
 
I haven't seen Gore's movie, but after following this thread I think I  will.
 
Dave