The question I pose is this I recently asked what can be done about the alleged problem regarding climate change and what the consequences of said intervention would be. What gathered was that if the believers in climate change are correct in about 80 years there would be drastic consequences. IN the event that drastic interventions are made it would prolong the disaster another 40 years. There does not seem to be a clear cost benefit analysis of intervention vs non-intervention. the restriction of fossil fuels would certainly devastate agricultural production and produce significant famine an starvation on a global scope. The resulting global turmoil this would cause is unclear. It seems to me that the issues of climate change needs a healthy pragmatic analysis to determine the benefits vs cost of intervention.
Posted on: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 00:54:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015