On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:27:42 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

**The nice thing about reducing CO2 emissions, is that there is no serious
downside. It's only about the money and where it is spent. If all the
climate scientists are correct and we fail to act, then the costs may exceed
the ability of the population of this planet to pay.

No downside? What about the economic downside? If we went on a major
global greenhouse gas reduction program, fossil fuel based
transportation would come to an end, many inherently inefficient
industries (e.g. aluminum) would be effectively banned, and production
of most everything made from processed petroleum (e.g. plastics,
fertilizer) would be drastically reduced. I'm sure the IPCC has
recognized this downside, which might explain their emphasis:
"... on assessing the socio-economic
aspects of climate change and implications for sustainable
development, risk management and the framing of a response
through both adaptation and mitigation."
in the 5th report, which covers the topic and should include any
downsides. Personally, I don't see any way to make it happen without
nationalizing every industry that belches CO2, methane, or water
vapor, and putting them all on a rather restrictive diet. Like I
said, I can't wait to hear their expert advice on adaptation and
mitigation without collateral damage. "The operation was a success,
but the patient died" comes to mind.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558