on 9/5/02 9:55 AM, Steve Verdon at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Well okay. But when we are talking about $350 billion (yes, I am
> aware that number is not accepted by all) shouldn't we at least
> consider some of the other alternatives? Especially since many of
> the decision makers are in a position to pursue those alternatives.
>
> To use Gus' example. I wouldn't know where to begin to send the $20
> bucks for a movie (admission and goodies) to benefit the starving
> child. And even if I did know where it'd take some time for the
> funds to get to the agency, to cash the check, and to get supplies to
> wherever the the starving child is. So my not walking into the
> movies will not prevent a child from starving...at that time.
Same point exactly.
Assuming it is $350 billion (corporations are at least as dishonest as
government about the costs of doing what they don't want to do as was
evidenced for anyone with a memory when the auto industry said it could not
afford to install catalytic converters on cars w/out making them
inordinately expensive) the money is NOT being proposed for any of those
nice things Lomborg offers as alternatives. They are very unlikely to be
real opportunity costs.
For all we know, it will be used instead to buy more SUVs, drugs, second
homes (that disrupt rural communities) and similar goodies. Actually, given
the politics of the people who like Lombord the most, that is a more likely
use of the $350 billion than any of the good things he mentions.
I'd rather spend the $350 billion on mitigating CO2 emissions.
grumpily,
Gus
|