It Could be Efficient


We can all agree that global warming exists, however, there is limited proof that it is caused by human beings. Of the approximate 200 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases emitted last year, man was responsible for emitting an approximate 7 billion metric tons. Be that as it may, we still must decide whether it is cost efficient to do anything to attempt to combat the rising temperatures. I am speculating, but I would imagine that the cost associated with reducing that 7 billion metric tons will be incredibly high and will have a negligible impact on global warming, if any at all.

We cannot stop nature and, therefore, must embrace what it has to offer. As Tyler points out, there are many benefits that could be realized by global warming and we must find a way to realize them and harness their potential. One of these benefits would be the potential increase in the production of food. With an increase in the production of food, much of the world’s starved population could be fed by the surplus. Although much of the world’s starvation problems are political in nature, the excess would exist for those that could penetrate the political force fields.

So, if we wish to proliferate world hunger then I suggest we do everything in our power to spend all the necessary resources to reduce our emissions. Otherwise, we can follow the Tao, flow in accordance with the way of nature, and realize all the benefits from that which we cannot stop.


2 Responses to “It Could be Efficient”

  1. Eli Says:

    I like Lomborg’s take: “Hurricane damage is increasing predominantly because there are more people with more goods to be damaged, settling in ever more risky habitats. Even if global warming does significantly increase the power of hurricanes, it is estimated that 95% to 98% of the increased damage will be due to demographics. The [Stern Report] acknowledges that simple initiatives like bracing and securing roof trusses and walls can cheaply reduce damage by more than 80%; yet its policy recommendations on expensive carbon reductions promise to cut the damages by 1% to 2% at best. That is a bad deal.”

  2. kebraks Says:

    It’s important to not speculate too far out of our field. Just as economists disdain those who don’t understand the basic rules of economics but still spout economic policy, those who have not studied the science of global warming should be cautious in making arguments about the physical costs and benefits.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: