Our legal system ought to make similar distinctions. If the overall effect of some new process or plant will reduce the overall environmental harm it ought to be approved instead of comparing the new proposal against a baseline of no harm occurring.
I agree. But cost-effectiveness should also be a factor. The sad truth is that direct fossil fuel to energy is significantly more cost-effective than most of the the alternatives. This suggests that a balance should be drawn between environmental impact and cost: electric vehicles, for example, are a costly environmental disaster.
There is no extant, none nuclear, source of energy which is more cost- and environmentally-effective, at the point of delivery than fossil fuel.
“Lacking the ability to power civilization without such drawbacks, the problem becomes one of managing risk.” I beg to differ: the problem is balancing the risk of the environmental and economic costs. In a nutshell, we must balance the (completely discredited) impact of anthropomorphic CO2 against its cost.
I have to disagree here. While there has been much debate about the impact of anthropogenic CO2, I think the horrors of anthropomorphic CO2 are universally acknowledged.
“While there has been much debate about the impact of anthropogenic CO2, I
think the horrors of anthropomorphic CO2 are universally acknowledged.” Huh?
What horrors? Universally? Etc.,etc.
During the past 16 years, anthropomorphic CO2 has increased 35% and there’s been no increase in global temperature. None!
The extent of Antartic ice is the same as it was five years ago. AGW has been shown by the data to be trivial.
Perhaps I should rephrase myself. As far as I know, you’re the first person to raise the specter of clouds of carbon dioxide taking on human form – or at least human attributes. Because this is such a novel idea, there probably hasn’t been enough time for a universal opinion to have formed. But this sort of development would seem to me, at least, to have sinister undertones.
Perhaps you should look at the actual data rather than clinging to thoroughly discredited theories.
I suggest you check a dictionary before you reply again. You could look up “anthropogenic” and “anthropomorphic.”
Touche. Although one might argue that applying human attributes to climate change is, indeed, a form of anthropomorphism.
And don’t expect many West Virginians – who are virtually united in their opposition to the so-called “war on coal” – to jump on the fracking bandwagon either. Indeed, it is the Democrat’s hostility to coal that has pushed the state away from the national Democratic party over the last twenty years.
The Feed gives no better heads up than “dangers” related to extraction of any mined resource.
Oh, so this is the “greens” fault? I love the transition from coal related toxic chemical spill to the “greens” inability to understand risk. Nice try. I wonder, did you did a risk/reward examination before we invaded Iraq? Doesn’t matter. This is one more nail in the coffin, now put your head back in the sand….