5 ms·

A couple things: - There would be no reason for the book if he was going to reiterate conventional wisdom. Selling books requires something that stands out fro

A couple things: - There would be no reason for the book if he was going to reiterate conventional wisdom. Selling books requires something that stands out from the noise. That's the context, and it should not be dismissed. - Few catastrophes are predicted. We can put off deciding. But if we wait too long to decide, or decide wronh the risk is significant. - Pollution is pollution. Reducing it hardly seems like a bad thing.

respondo2134 6y ago
So there's also the the (naive?) assumption that when you see an important perspective missing and you are a scientist you feel the motivation to address it and perhaps write a book. >> ...or decide wronh the risk is significant. This sounds exactly the same as what he is saying, i.e. getting trillion dollar decisions wrong. >> - Pollution is pollution. This just isn't true. We have limited resources and need to prioritize them to tackle the issues with the biggest return. This is in the best interest of the people who want change and the people who pay for it, even if they're not the same groups.
- chiefalchemist 6y ago
  Pollution is pollution. There is a significant amount of human health issues that result from (air) pollution. Resources or not, we're not currently factoring in the true cost of fossil fuels. Remove the subsidies. Add the health cost. Those resources are significantly more expensive.
Bostonian 6y ago
Dirt is dirt, but you don't spend every hour at home cleaning. There is a point at which reducing pollution is not worth the cost.
- chiefalchemist 6y ago
  Yes. But dirt is not pollution. In the USA, there are plenty of super funds sites that don't agree with you. What's happening elsewhere? God only knows. The dirty little secret is the USA outsources manufacturing not only because of labour costs, but because other countries have much less repect for Mother Nature. The USA brags it cleaned up, but it simply exposed it. That unhealthy smog in China? The USA and others own much of it.
  - HKH2 6y ago
    exported*

respondo2134 6y ago

So there's also the the (naive?) assumption that when you see an important perspective missing and you are a scientist you feel the motivation to address it and perhaps write a book. >> ...or decide wronh the risk is significant. This sounds exactly the same as what he is saying, i.e. getting trillion dollar decisions wrong. >> - Pollution is pollution. This just isn't true. We have limited resources and need to prioritize them to tackle the issues with the biggest return. This is in the best interest of the people who want change and the people who pay for it, even if they're not the same groups.

chiefalchemist 6y ago
Pollution is pollution. There is a significant amount of human health issues that result from (air) pollution. Resources or not, we're not currently factoring in the true cost of fossil fuels. Remove the subsidies. Add the health cost. Those resources are significantly more expensive.

Bostonian 6y ago

Dirt is dirt, but you don't spend every hour at home cleaning. There is a point at which reducing pollution is not worth the cost.

chiefalchemist 6y ago
Yes. But dirt is not pollution. In the USA, there are plenty of super funds sites that don't agree with you. What's happening elsewhere? God only knows. The dirty little secret is the USA outsources manufacturing not only because of labour costs, but because other countries have much less repect for Mother Nature. The USA brags it cleaned up, but it simply exposed it. That unhealthy smog in China? The USA and others own much of it.
- HKH2 6y ago
  exported*