Re: [asa] Carbon Offsets for the Elite (or, How the Wealthy Adapt to Warming)

From: Rich Blinne <>
Date: Sun Mar 04 2007 - 09:39:33 EST

On Mar 4, 2007, at 5:28 AM, George Murphy wrote:

> Tut-tut again David. The fact that the wealthy can, ceteris
> paribus, cope better with a response to global warming is hardly a
> big surprise & is not an argument against such a response. The
> fact that your argument is in fact ad hominem is shown by the
> simple fact that you focussed on Al Gore. If it had been about the
> heated pool of Joe Schmoe it would have little impact.
> But instead of concentrating on the weaknesses of Gore's proposals,
> why not come up with some of your own? The 3d line of defense of
> global warming deniers - after having admitted that warming is real
> & is in significant part caused by human beings - now seems to be
> that it costs too much to do anything about it.
The third line of defense is the problem is simultaneously trivial
and the-end-of-the-world-as we-know-it. So, which is it? If it is
trivial than the proposals will improve our security by lowering our
fossil fuel usage. If it is the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it then
we should say to the rich that they need to do much more. In neither
case does it produce policies favored by the WSJ editorial board. In
reality, it is neither: a solvable but difficult problem -- for the
rich. The valid point that David raised is that the rich will adapt.
The poor will become environmental refugees like what happened after
Hurricane Mitch. This makes the WSJ position, oh we'll just adapt,
that much more cruel.

If evangelical environmental skeptics are truly interested in what
climate change does to the poor, then listen to the Christian
organization whose mission is to minister to them, World Vision:

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Mar 4 09:40:31 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Mar 04 2007 - 09:40:31 EST