3 ms·
End the Politics: let scientists & engineers lead
- tokenadult 17y ago"The costs of these approaches can only be judged after more thorough testing and analysis. Thus the side payments that rich countries will have to make to poor ones to adopt such technologies can't yet be determined precisely." I see the author of the submitted article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs is credentialed as an economist, and had a rapid rise in academia, but not without controversy. I wonder, as a matter of an informed voter's thinking about economics, if we are entirely sure that there are only benefits to fighting anthropogenic global warming and no costs to fighting it. This is a serious question, from someone who lives more than 800 feet above sea level (and far inland besides) and in a climate such that I have to heat my home at this time of year for my home to habitable. If we look at costs and benefits at the intra-national level, as well as at the international level, are we entirely sure (this would now move into the realm of political science) that majorities in democratic republics would support the policy of letting scientists and engineers lead on this issue? (And are we entirely sure that all scientists and engineers are of one mind on the facts of this issue and on the technologies of what to do about it?)