-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Bissell <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Saturday, November 07, 1998 7:10 AM
Subject: Re: Perceptions of sustainability
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Steve <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Friday, November 06, 1998 4:34 PM
>Subject: Re: Perceptions of sustainability
>
>
>
>(snip)
>>Sorry I was being a tad sarcastic, I thought it was obvious, sorry for
>>the confusion. Are you now advocating a "no pollution goal"? I think
>>that such a goal would have an extremely high cost, perhaps a cost so
>>high as to be considered infinite. Of course this makes the
>>impracticality of a pollution permit trading scheme seem almost
>>ridiculously simple by comparison.
>>
>
>Yes, same as I'd propose a "no crime goal." Goals are always reached,
that's
>why they are called "goals."
>
>So what if it costs a lot? Where does it say in Darwin that ecology should
>be effecient?
Sorry, that's suppose to be "aren't" always reached.
sb
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|