This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Climate Change editorial

keddaw's Avatar Jump to comment 4 by keddaw

Who wrote this nonsense?

Just read the part on this site and have seen two glaring errors:

Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time...

No, it won't. In 2,000 years (if even) there will be little to no trace of AGW.

...climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security.
Climate change will affect all parts of our planet, but certainly not always in a negative way. The growing seasons are already longer (meaning more produce), desert creep can be arrested by human inventiveness which would also possibly allow some vegetation to creep back into the desert. The proposed agreements would massively limit international trade and thus retard the growth prospects of those that need trade the most - the third world. What would impact our security more, a country that looks on in envy but isn't allowed to trade or a country that is struggling to keep a constant water supply to its people? And which one would a prosperous world be more able to help? Any author who suggests trade is anything but good for global prosperity should not be taken seriously. And no, carbon-credit trading does not count.

Not to mention there is a huge advantage, and virtually no chance of a penalty, of one country ignoring the agreement.

The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.
Says who? Where is the relative damage of no financial bailout compared to no action on climate change? And where are the comparative figures, how much did each cost? Honestly, this is a shocking opinion piece and without any counter opinion is nothing more than propaganda.

Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:51:00 UTC | #420968