Re: Earth Hour: Turn Off the Lights!Apr 5th, 2009
I didn't miss it; those are things that have happened/are happening in the world but aside from biofuels (and DDT--I'm not sure that's relevant because it's carcinogenic, so malaria is the lesser evil)
Sure it's easy for you to believe that malaria is the lesser evil when it's just a few million black people in Africa, but I bet if it was your kids who were vulnerable you'd think different. I got to know some refugees from Sudan and their biggest and ever present fear (after the political unrest and killings) for their kids was malaria. One of the things they specifically mentioned that they liked about Canada was the absence of that killer.
you haven't really made a clear cause and effect connection between the GW movement and all of the above. Sure that's what you're saying but you haven't really backed it up with why that is so.
Now you're talking. The pro-Kyoto argument is that reduction of emissions would result in lower health costs/deaths. The argument is dependent on the idea that average global temperatures are rising and all that that implies.
Since it Kyoto doesn't really cover for example water sources (aside from indirectly via polluted rainfall), it doesn't seem reasonable to put people's immediate welfare on the line for the sake of reducing just emissions, in most cases.
Take Forestry for as example of an exception: limits on clear-cutting would cause significant job-loss in the Forestry/lumber industry. However, the costs of losing all that air-filtering potential due to clear-cutting outweighs the cost of unemployment.
So my first question is; Why just clear cutting? Why not all logging? After all, a trees "air filtering potential" is ended when it is cut, either in a clear cut or selective cut.
Second question; Do you think a tree will live forever? They're all going to die anyway eventually. The new seedling that springs up in a logged area isn't any less "air filtering" than one that seeds naturally in a naturally deforested area.
Third question; What the heck do you mean by "air filtering"?
The idea that "Green jobs" are somehow an effective employment-gap filler seems unlikely though. Some jobs are created, but it hardly counters the job loss at the other end. People who promote that just seem to want to have their cake and eat it to; going "green" requires sacrifice (at least initially until you introduce large-scale economic changes to regain viability).
[BTW I assume by "AGW" you actually meant GW (i.e. Kyoto won't have any impact on non-human-caused CC).]
I would still say that intended threats to human welfare, like companies polluting water sources just to save a buck (i.e. causing ill-health and death supposedly for the sake of cutting costs and keeping a few more people employed) are more logical targets for protest than generally well-meaning threats to jobs (i.e. Earth Hour).
I would wager that most of the human-caused health threats faced by humans today all over the world are preventable without causing economic havoc.
And, to be honest, if it does cause havoc...balls to that economy. Humans need to learn how to live responsibly for *uck's sake.