Ray Lanier (I believe) wrote:
>Given your condition of uncertainty as the fundamental base point, I'm not
>sure that "all-out" approaches to global warming under the guise of the
>"precautionary principle" are the way to go--yet. (*YET* !) Under the
>worst-case global warming scenarios to which so many people seem so
>irresistably drawn, some environmentalists are calling for nothing less than
>the most Draconian measures they can imagine. In contrast, I think more
>modest and moderate policies are appropriate. The moral values I would
>invoke to underpin these more modest approaches would surely include: (a)
>some principled ideal of moderation such as the classic Aristotelian
>doctrine of the mean; and (b) a characteristically more modern economic
>awareness of the negatives/costs of any such measures, i.e. costs that
>undoubtedly and inevitably will be born on the backs of the poor, the less
>fortunate, etc.

In reviewing most of the policies and instruments to 'combat' climate
change, I found an overwhelming emphasis of a 'no regrets' approach. The
earliest nation to 'fight' climate change was Sweden. This country
instituted a strategy to utilize biomass in order to create new energy over
the last ten years, effectively reducing the demand for coal and nuclear
generated electricity. This resulted in a better balance of trade (Sweden
has no petroleum), less acid rain, and other environmental impacts. The
overall benefit was positive for the nation.

Another positive case was in Denmark where slightly more than 10 % of the
nations electricity is now derived from windpower. This has resulted in no
increase in the use of coal for this nation, and as well it lacks the coal
reserves, so it also benefits from a more positive trade balance. In
addition, there are industrial sector benefits for Denmark in that it can
participate in this new sector that is emerging. It has industry partners
that are working in other countries such as Argentina, etc. 

A 'no regrets' approach to policies and instruments to fight climate change
involve other enormous benefits from both a sociological and economic
perspective. So this is the future. When Ford begins to sell it's P2000 car,
it will have designed a vehicle that will have up to three times the fuel
economy of the current automobile. This car owes it's existence to national
contributions and from industry. The are many players that see 'climate
change' as an opportunity, not as a loss of opportunity.

Lets face it there is enough coal to last over one thousand years at the
present rate of consumption. This would increase the CO2 levels by 300
times, and we would have no ice caps left in the world, and the sea surface
would rise 200 feet, and there would be no place on earth that looks the
same as it does today. In 300 years, there may be so much change, that even
the Arctic would be growing temperate forests. Much of the more tropical
regions of the world, especially the Amazon would be desert. It is predicted
that the Amazon rainforest will be 10 percent of the current size due to CO2
levels in only one hundred years, and that is without any more clearcutting
by logging. 

So any thing that makes economic sense also should be ecologically sustainable. 

Of course,

John Foster





>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%