🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <907508042.10302.0.nnrp-03.c2de9a2e@news.demon.co.uk>, Max
Beran <max@oldboot.demon.co.uk> writes
>You display a trait that is very common among the "radical concerned"; a
>diminished ability to distinguish a proper level of response to risks that
>we know exist from those that we do not know if they exist. And when I say
>"know", I really mean "know", not just "suspect" or "fear".

There is an element of this in environmental circles, but I believe it
is a minor element.

>For example, when we design a structure like a bridge, its basic properties
>are governed by a known set of risks - risks - wind, traffic load, ravages
>of time. We incorporate the unknowable risks within a factor of safety that
>is added to the basic. We rightly would not  act as if the unknowable risks
>were knowable and incorporate them explicitly in the design. That way, it is
>true, no bridge would ever fall down, but on the other hand we would not
>have the funds to build many bridges.
>
>I trust the analogies with the subject matter of this thread are clear.

To take your analogy, you're building a bridge on a major earthquake
fault. You don't yet know whether the fault is still active but there's
growing evidence that it is. Now do you build in earthquake protection?
Or alternatively, do you build your bridge further up the valley where
it will be far more likely to be safe from earthquakes but will cost a
little more.

My problem with the arguments over climate change is that things have
polarised into the fossil fuel, car industries, etc. who are making out
that climate change is still only a vague possibility and as such we can
safely ignore it; and on the other side, the more extremist
environmentalists who claim that global warming is a fact and we're all
going to die as a result.

In practice, the evidence for global warming is pretty good (although by
no means conclusive) and the most mainstream models suggest that the
results of climate change will be extremely significant, but not
necessarily completely catastrophic. 

My concern with the original article was that it sounded rather too much
like an apology for the oil industry: 'There's no point us doing
anything right now until we're entirely sure, but look at all the other
things that could be done to save lives'. It's a bit of a smoke screen
to cover the possibilities for at least some measures to be taken to
counter the threat of climate change. 

We can't go overboard at this stage and completely change everything we
do overnight just in case, but I do believe that more can be done than
is currently being done and that many of these measures make sense even
without the threat of global warming. For example, reducing car usage in
the UK makes sense economically and on health grounds - traffic
congestion is a serious problem in this country.

Richard Vialls              (please replace nospam with demon for email & WWW)
Black Cat Electronics - contract electronics design
Bodrwyn, Cerrigceinwen, Bodorgan,                     Phone: +44(0)1407 720717
Anglesey, LL62 5EF, UK.                    Email: rvialls@blakcat.nospam.co.uk
                                          Web: http://www.blakcat.nospam.co.uk