Hello again,
Ray opined:
>There are several ethical issues that we *should* be addressing.
>
>1. Under conditions of uncertainty, what are the ethical considerations
>that should be addressed. And how?
>
>2. Given that Edison Electric Institute believes that any reactions should
>be voluntary, what are the ethical considerations that should be considered
>there?
>
>3. Other related *ethical* considerations.
Okay, let's leave aside the messy questions about WHY there is uncertainty
with global warming predictions and go ahead and assume that global warming
is occurring, and also that human greenhouse gas emissions are a
significant cause of this warming. What should we do?
I was struck by the casual manner in which Michael previously made the
following statements:
> If we assume the linkage is real and act
>accordingly, all we have lost is the convenience of using our cars, and
>possibly a slight reduction in our lifestyle. Given that cars are the
>cause of a vast array of other social and environmental ills, this is not
>much to lose.
I don't think this is a very responsible position, at least not when it is
so blithely asserted in such a cavalier and offhand fashion. (And once
more, I am not picking on any one individual here, but rather on the common
'environmentalist' sentiments expressed in Michael's post, and the tone in
which these kinds of statements are usually made.) There is probably not a
single sector of the global economy that isn't tied somehow into the use of
cars and other fossil fuel burning vehicles; and to suggest that we can
just give this up--and that "this is not much to lose"--boggles the mind.
"And possibly a slight reduction in our lifestyle" . . . what do you mean,
"possibly"?
Environmentalists are often accused of having little or no economic
awareness--Martin Lewis makes the case forcefully in _Green Delusions_--and
to suggest that the *only* thing that would be lost is the "convenience" of
using cars strikes me as staggeringly naive. If you are simply anti-car,
i.e. opposed to cars on moralistic grounds, then fine: You should argue
against cars on that basis. But to use global warming as the club with
which to fight your anti-automobile vendetta is intellectually dishonest
and once again, exposes the environmentalist to ridicule and charges of
hypocrisy. Why not argue instead (as many are in fact arguing) that
automobile technology itself be changed, both in (a) existing technology to
reduce fossil fuel consumption and its attendant greenhouse gas emissions,
but also (b) new automotive technologies? Right now Toyota is marketing a
gas-electric "hybrid" car
http://automobiles.miningco.com/autos/automobiles/library/weekly/aa112698.htm :
why not spend our energies encouraging *this* kind of effort, rather than
making simplistic and blithe assertions that we should just give up cars?
Along with Ray, I'm all for discussion of "ethical considerations." Let's
have at it. :-)
Jim T.
>Quite frankly, I am getting tired of the situation where a person who is not
>competent in the global warming field should continue to distract us from
>the ethical considerations involved.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Ray Lanier
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|