Let me weigh in here for a moment, as Bissell raises a good, if not always
obvious to all, point.

Generally, business opposes spending money on preparing for global warming,
because it's not a profit center. Like internalizing the costs of a gallon
of gasoline to include cleaning up the pollution that unit causes, such
expenses are not reflected on the bottom line, within a time frame that
would offer profits to stockholders. So, in order to prevent having to spend
such funds, the business community seeks a rhetorical tool to show that
there is no global warming, or that it's not anthropogenic (so there's
nothing we can do about it), or that it will be fun.

On the other side, environmentalists have no short-term profit worries, so
they see the longer run in terms of effects of warming on human and other
populations, and seek reductions in co2 to reduce the rate of warming. To
some extent they are willing to pay for it, in the form of higher prices,
but they are usually not the ones who have to shell out the money to make
the changes needed. They are mostly altruistic, as there is little to be
gained here, even by being "right." So to strengthen their position,
environmentalists seize on the effects of warming, trying to show how much
of a threat it is, and how little we know, so that it is necessary to be
cautious (precautionary principle) when it comes to adding heat to the
atmosphere.

The issue is money, or profits, seemingly the most important motive of all
in our society, which is based on western European values. Of course, to the
people who may endure the most harm from warming, that may not be such an
important issue, as they are the 3rd world poor.
-Tc
Anthony R. S. Chiaviello, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Professional Writing
Department of English
University of Houston-Downtown
One Main Street
Houston, TX 77002-0001
713.221.8520 / 713.868.3979
"Question Reality"

> ----------
> From:         Steven Bissell[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent:         Wednesday, February 28, 2001 2:27 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: Global Warming Read
>
> You know the more of this stuff I see, on both sides of the issue, and
> remember I personally don't have much of an opinion on global warming, the
> more convinced I am that something strange is going on here. Why are both
> sides accusing the other of all this cheating, lying, and manipulation?
> Why
> is so much ego at stake? Does anyone know who's on first?
>
> Steven
>    On the other hand, prophets have a way of outlasting politicians.
> Gandhi
> has outlasted Nehru, and it appears that Confucius will outlast Mao
> Tse-tung.
>                                 Huston Smith
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Steve
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 11:41 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Global Warming Read
>
>
> I find Ross Gelbspan to be one of the more dishonest people on the
> web.
>
> He has publicly claimed to have won a Pulitzer Prize, and the people who
> awarded the prize were more than a little upset because he never did win
> one.
>
> http://www.sepp.org/pressrel/pulitzer.html
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
> >>  >  > GLOBAL WARMING: BUSH SHOULD FOLLOW CORPORATE LEAD
> >>  >  >
> >>  >  > By Ross Gelbspan
> >>  >  >
> >>  >  > (Excerpted from a new FPIF Global Affairs
> >>  >  > Commentary, posted at:
> >>  >  >
> >>  >  http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/commentary/0102warming.html.)
>
>
> =====
> "In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in
> a
> 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
> --Jamey Lee West
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>