you’ll laugh, you’ll cry, it’ll change your life


If the world is going to embark on serious social and economic overhaul in order to intentionally effect the environment, shouldn’t the focus then be on what the optimal global environment is? That thought then leads to a cost/benefit analysis.


2 responses

  1. Nobody knows what the “optimal global environment is,” and to focus on that would embarrass the environmentalists. The optimal environment isn’t their real concern anyway, it’s about reducing population numbers.

    February 22, 2009 at 11:46 pm

    • dailynat

      That’s the point. I think that anytime someone wants to talk about trying to “mitigate” climate effects, then the discussion needs to be moved into the direction of costs and benefits. It’s one thing to have a gut desire to cave-man days, it’s quite another to think that you can do it without convincing people. If humans are clearly shown to be negatively affecting the environment, then the costs and benefits can also be clearly shown.

      February 23, 2009 at 7:21 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s