>
> Från: Al Winslow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Datum: 2002/08/02 Fri PM 09:14:19 CEST
> Till: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Ämne: {W&P} energy & environment
>
>
>
> Al Winslow wrote:
> >
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >... As the biggest user and producer of greenhouse gases don't take
> > >interrest for economic reasons they, or anybody else that really should
> > >listen, see no reason.
> > >
> > ---------------------------
>
> I posted a brief, sarcastic reply. I'm now going to send an article by
> one of our wisest thinkers, Thomas Sowell:
>
>
>
> Jewish World Review July 30, 2002
> by Thomas Sowell
>
> At what cost?
> http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com |
>
> Now that we have all breathed a sigh of relief at the rescue of the
> miners trapped underground in Somerset, Pa., perhaps we might reconsider
> some of the things that send men down into such hazardous places to get
> us the fuel to power our economy.
> The cost of coal is more than dollars and cents. It is also danger and
> lives. So are the costs of other ways of producing power for our homes
> and industries. Hydroelectric dams can burst and wipe out whole
> communities. Oil can spill over vast areas of land or sea, or catch fire
> and pollute the air. Nuclear power has its dangers as well, as Chernobyl
> demonstrated.
> Too often, individuals, organizations and movements seize upon one
> particular kind of cost or danger and try to block it by all means
> possible. But how many miners' lives are we prepared to risk, in order
> to spare any inconvenience to Caribou near the Alaskan oil reserves? Or
> to spare the delicate feelings of nature cultists who will wring their
> hands over oil drilling that neither they nor 99 percent of the American
> people will ever see?
> Children can set their hearts on one thing and throw tantrums when they
> can't get it, or can't get it right now. But the mark of maturity is
> weighing one thing against another in an imperfect world.
> An adult weighing trade-offs cannot demand that nuclear power be "safe"
> because nothing on the face of this earth is 100 percent safe. The only
> meaningful question is: Compared to what? Compared to digging for coal
> or burning oil? Compared to hydroelectric dams? Compared to running out
> of electricity and having blackouts?
> Demanding "clean" air and water is like demanding "safe" sources of
> power. There are no such things. There is air and water containing
> greater and lesser amounts of other elements and compounds, some of
> which represent varying amounts of danger that can be removed at varying
> costs.
> Some of these elements and compounds are dangerous pollutants, which can
> be removed to a great extent at relatively modest costs. But to remove
> that last infinitesimal fraction of pollutants means skyrocketing costs
> to avoid ever more remote, or even questionable, dangers.
> Some things that might be lethal in high concentrations may be easily
> handled by the body's natural defenses when there are only minute traces
> in the air or water. Unfortunately, such complications do not lend
> themselves to political slogans or to ideological crusades that can
> energize zealots in environmental cults or Chicken Littles who demand
> absolute "safety."
> Politicians pander to such people, especially during election years, as
> California's Governor Gray Davis has done by approving more stringent
> "clean air" standards for automobiles sold in that state. Since there is
> no way to burn fuel without producing emissions, the mantra of "lower
> emission standards" is a blank check for never-ending escalations of
> costs for removing ever more remote dangers.
> The most fraudulent of these lower emissions efforts are those directed
> toward producing electric cars, which will have no emissions at all,
> because the pollutants are emitted where the electricity is produced,
> rather than in the cars where it is used. But the emissions are still
> produced.
> True zealots say that "if it saves just one human life," any measure for
> the sake of safety is worth whatever it costs. But what if its costs can
> include other human lives?
> Wealth saves lives. The miners who were trapped underground in
> Pennsylvania would have been dead in many Third World countries, because
> the costly technology and the highly trained specialists who rescued
> them would simply not have been there, and could not have been gotten
> there in time over dirt roads or through jungles.
> An earthquake that kills a dozen people in California will kill hundreds
> of people in a less affluent nation and thousands in a truly poor
> country. Not only does wealth enable buildings and other structures to
> be built to more earthquake resistant standards, wealth also provides
> more advanced rescue equipment and more elaborately equipped hospitals
> with more highly trained personnel to treat the injured.
> They say talk is cheap. But some kinds of political rhetoric can end up
> costing lives as well as money.
>
> Thomas Sowell Archives
> © 2002, Creators Syndicate
>
But what if it costs all life in the future? And not needed to do that?
-------------------------------------------------
WebMail från Tele2 http://www.tele2.se
-------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________________
Check out http://clik.to/sf for other lists to join.
A93MR48T18
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1dhdK.b1tdRU
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
