Now as an engineer I agree completely agree with a cost benefit approach. The much maligned "skeptical environmentalist" had a good point there even if he did botch much of the science in his book. However to do a cost benefit analysis on something like global warming you must start by:
1) Admit a problem (sorry against the party platform)
2) Estimate the downside by
a) Doing experiments (not a good idea with a whole planet)
or
b) Doing mathematical calculations/computer simulations (sorry
Republicans don't believe in computer models and there is no analytical solution)
Nice premise, but kind of a strawman here because 0 cost is really what the Republicans want with regard to global warming.
No as for the environment as a whole where we have simple cause and effect relationships that even politicians can relate to we do see an attempt to balance costs and benfits, but the bias towards low cost is still obvious.
Regards,
Mark
Current Events » in reply to Everything has to be subject to a cost/benefit analysis
He Said 0 Cost
The whole thread (21 posts)
- Of Course Kerry Is Stupid
- re: Right, sure trying hard to bridge the gap. Please show a current poll where Bush is more than 3 points ahead. Stupid is as stupid does. (n/t)
- OK. Let's found the "Reason" political party here and now.
- Sounds Good Except For The Name
- We're incensed at Clinton's lies but not Bush's. There goes "reason".
- I'm all for reason but ....
- And we think space is really, really cool and we need big rockets. lol (n/t)
- re: Of Course Kerry Is Stupid
