Thursday, July 23, 2009

QOTD

UPDATE: below

Nobel Prize-winning economist Thomas Schelling, interviewed in the Atlantic about climate change and the chances of reaching international agreements limiting emissions:
I do think that one of the difficulties is that most of the beneficiaries aren't yet born. More than that: Most of the beneficiaries will be born in what we now call the developing world. By 2080 or 2100 five-sixths of the population, at least, will be in places like China, India, Indonesia, Africa and so forth. And what I don't know is whether Americans are really willing to understand that and do anything for the benefit of the unborn Chinese.

It's a tough sell. And probably you have to find ways to exaggerate the threat. . .

I tend to be rather pessimistic. I sometimes wish that we could have, over the next five or ten years, a lot of horrid things happening -- you know, like tornadoes in the Midwest and so forth -- that would get people very concerned about climate change. But I don't think that's going to happen.
We've seen this movie before.

MORE:

Assistant Village Idiot in comments: "AGW is socially settled, but not scientifically." Agreed.

(via Watts Up With That?)

3 comments:

Assistant Village Idiot said...

AGW is socially settled, but not scientifically.

A_Nonny_Mouse said...

"And what I don't know is whether Americans are really willing to understand that and do anything for the benefit of the unborn Chinese."
=============================

Uh, so far even the Chinese themselves aren't willing to make the economic sacrifices any "climate change agreements" would necessitate.

Seems to me that if the supposed impact of AGW on all those "unborn Chinese" isn't important enough to persuade their own government to take action against CO2 emissions, I'll keep driving my car and heating my house a couple more years without feeling guilty.

Carl said...

Agreed, both of you.