Betsy's Page
HOME
Comments from an AP history
and government teacher in Raleigh, NC.
e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com
Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you.
Site Feed
Betsy neither necessarily uses,
nor endorses,
the products advertised on this site.
The truth about Avesil
Cheap Hosting
Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney
Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney
Wikio
Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights
Online Bachelors Degree
Comments from an AP history
and government teacher in Raleigh, NC.
e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com
Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you.
Site Feed
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
Bjorn Lomborg joins the crowds pooh-poohing the supposed science in The Day After Tomorrow. He also points out the dangers if politicians were stampeded into taking action based on this film.Although it's not going to kill us the day after tomorrow, global warming is certainly a reality. So what is wrong with drastically overplaying the need for action? As NASA research oceanographer William Patzert says: "The science is bad, but perhaps it's an opportunity to crank up the dialogue on our role in climate change." Where is the harm in that?
The problem is that if we overestimate the risk that climate change poses, then we will pay less attention to the other challenges facing humanity. That appears to be exactly the aim of the movie's creators. Emmerich, whose previous hits include Independence Day, says his "hidden dream is that this film will force politicians to act". He believes global warming is "the only problem big enough to force all the countries of the world to stop fighting and work together to save the planet". Some lobby groups that believe in the risk of sudden climate change have jumped on to the bandwagon, planning events around this movie's opening to ostensibly educate shell-shocked viewers.
If politicians were to snap to attention, what would be achieved? Implementing the Kyoto agreement on climate change would cost at least $150 billion each year, yet would merely postpone global warming for six years by 2100. The family in Bangladesh who will get flooded will have an extra six years to move.
Even if the movie's creators are right – and the scientists are wrong – and the Gulf Stream does collapse within a decade, then Kyoto would have made no difference.
For the cost of implementing Kyoto in just one year, we could permanently provide clean drinking water and sanitation to everyone on the planet. Yet it is unlikely that Emmerich will cast Brad Pitt creating sewerage systems in Kenya for his next glamorous movie. Nor is he likely to tell us the tale of governments investing in malarial vaccines or global conferences removing trade barriers.
Yet these are the stark options that policy-makers face every time they spend a dollar destined to ease human suffering.
In an ideal world, we would be able to achieve everything – we should halt global warming and eradicate corruption, end malnutrition and win the war against communicable diseases. Because we cannot do everything, we need sound reasoning and high-quality information to defeat the hysteria of Hollywood. Such common sense is not to be found in this film.
0 comments
Comments:
Bjorn Lomborg joins the crowds pooh-poohing the supposed science in The Day After Tomorrow. He also points out the dangers if politicians were stampeded into taking action based on this film.
0 comments
Bjorn Lomborg joins the crowds pooh-poohing the supposed science in The Day After Tomorrow. He also points out the dangers if politicians were stampeded into taking action based on this film.
Although it's not going to kill us the day after tomorrow, global warming is certainly a reality. So what is wrong with drastically overplaying the need for action? As NASA research oceanographer William Patzert says: "The science is bad, but perhaps it's an opportunity to crank up the dialogue on our role in climate change." Where is the harm in that?
The problem is that if we overestimate the risk that climate change poses, then we will pay less attention to the other challenges facing humanity. That appears to be exactly the aim of the movie's creators. Emmerich, whose previous hits include Independence Day, says his "hidden dream is that this film will force politicians to act". He believes global warming is "the only problem big enough to force all the countries of the world to stop fighting and work together to save the planet". Some lobby groups that believe in the risk of sudden climate change have jumped on to the bandwagon, planning events around this movie's opening to ostensibly educate shell-shocked viewers.
If politicians were to snap to attention, what would be achieved? Implementing the Kyoto agreement on climate change would cost at least $150 billion each year, yet would merely postpone global warming for six years by 2100. The family in Bangladesh who will get flooded will have an extra six years to move.
Even if the movie's creators are right – and the scientists are wrong – and the Gulf Stream does collapse within a decade, then Kyoto would have made no difference.
For the cost of implementing Kyoto in just one year, we could permanently provide clean drinking water and sanitation to everyone on the planet. Yet it is unlikely that Emmerich will cast Brad Pitt creating sewerage systems in Kenya for his next glamorous movie. Nor is he likely to tell us the tale of governments investing in malarial vaccines or global conferences removing trade barriers.
Yet these are the stark options that policy-makers face every time they spend a dollar destined to ease human suffering.
In an ideal world, we would be able to achieve everything – we should halt global warming and eradicate corruption, end malnutrition and win the war against communicable diseases. Because we cannot do everything, we need sound reasoning and high-quality information to defeat the hysteria of Hollywood. Such common sense is not to be found in this film.
Comments:
Post a Comment
