🚀 go-pugleaf

Greig Ebeling wrote:
> 
> Jay, you are missing the point.  That ozone depletion results in
> increased UV is irrelevant.  It is the AMOUNT of increase which
> matters, and IMO this is insignificant against the effects of human
> behavioural patterns, and natural variations.

According to NASA:
> >In the paper, Herman finds that annual average UV-B exposure has
> >increased by 6.8 percent per decade at 55 degrees north latitude,

Is this normal?  If so, I haven't heard about it.
Would you cite your sources?

> Even if some form of biological affect can be discerned, the question
> still remains:  How great is the effect in terms of cost to the
> community, and how does this compare to the cost of minimising the

Costs and benefits are different in *kind* and accrue
to *different* people. This is, by definition, a
political question that can only be resolved in the
political arena.  In other words, the answer derived by
the political process is deemed to be the *right* answer.

Your counter argument appears to contain some dubious
assumptions.  Here are a few:

#1 You assume that companies would pass on savings
   gained by not complying with CFC regulation to the
   community for other, more important, environmental
   issues.

#2 You assume that scientists know the full biological
   impacts of ozone depletion due to CFCs.

#3 You assume that economists have an objective measure
   of human welfare.

None of these assumptions is true.

Jay