[lit-ideas] Re: Global warming claims tropical island
- From: "Paul Stone" <pastone@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:00:03 -0500
On 12/28/06, Andy Amago <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For Paul, the economic argument is nonsense.
It isn't nonsense if you want 'immediate' results. It would absolutely ruin
our economy to even throttle down over a span of a decade. Of course, we
could dream up something new and begin thriving again, but SHOULD we? That's
the question that we really should address. It doesn't seem to me that we
are.
It's what the car and oil companies argue. We can have a Manhattan project
to create a bomb, but we can't have one to clean up the environment?
Clean up our environment? What EXACTLY do you mean? Please list all the
'stuff' that needs cleaning up. Then tell me who is going to do the
cleaning, who is going to pay for it, and what we are going to do with all
the stuff we clean up?
The U.S. by itself creates most of the greenhouse gases, at least 30%.
30% is "most"? You see, this is the kind of sentence that I just can't get
past. It's not even sensible language, let alone the implicatures.
and what exactly is a "greenhouse gas" and can I get some for my greenhouse
to run on?
And, for Andy, I have asked you twice now:
Re: your sentence "We're the ones too stupid to let it slip through our
fingers, along with everything else."
Do you mean that "we are stupid and and we SHOULD let it slip through our
fingers"? Because that's what the sentence says.
If that IS what you meant to say... why are we too stupid to let something
slip through our fingers, what is that thing? and should we also let
everything else slip through our fingers as well? If so... what all else do
you have in mind and why should we let it slip through our fingers?
P
Other related posts:
