Gothamist: Reality Based Forecasts

f u c k y o u

Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:49:33 -0500

uf weridos

will

Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:03:36 -0500

i don't know how false it is joe. resources are intrinsically limited, and in this case they may even be negative sum: every dollar we spend on preventing global warming is not only a dollar we're not spending on infectious diseases, but may also hurt growth over the medium term leaving us less to spend on what may come. that's not to say i'm against carbon taxes, in fact, i think they're a really good idea especially compared to ban-everything lunacy. but i do think that given limited resources, and in order to do good, problems have to be prioritized, and i think we should spend the most on problems that are concrete, measurable, and exist now.

Joe

Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:33:55 -0500

will, you're offering a false choice. I think we ought to address global warming and infectious diseases. The timelines for both problems is vastly different. Infectious diseases are an immediate problem while the consequences of global warming lie in the future. Just because global warming will become a problem in the future doesn't mean we shouldn't start addressing it now.

will

Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:37:43 -0500

joe, some "non-ideological" reality-based questions for you: 1. how many people died today as a direct cause of global warming? 2. how many people died today as a direct cause of malaria/aids/any other disease? 3. do you think its better to pat yourself on your back while you worry about abstract problems that may not materialize, or actually do something that helps people now?

q

Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:28:00 -0500

Linking taxes to pollution (instead of the payrool) is a great idea, even for Republicans. Since they're always trying to reduce taxes, it's an incentive for them to reduce pollution. Your company wants to pay less in taxes? Then pollute less. Everybody wins, since big companies are always trying to lobby for less taxes.