Might as well just ask the worlds population to just stop breathing since it contributes to hot air as well.

China's one child policy, though unwillingly imposed on most inhabitants, has had a marked effect on diminishing the growth of that country's rural population. (Not that I advocate a one child policy or some of its consequences.)

And the idea of controlling growth isn't so far-fetched even from a purely self-interested viewpont. There may come a time when more "growth" put so much pressure on resources that it causes a crash and makes people worse off. At that point, it would be wise from a pure cost-benefit analysis to avoid growth unless a way can be found of avoiding the crash.

i take it you were going to drive by yourself not take public transportation or carpool. heck if you really want to send a message try biking everywhere.

That's the irony of stepitup2007 events. Almost every one of them has driving directions and involves people driving, sometimes from hither and yon, to attend x event to raise awareness of human contributions to global warming. Unfortunately, it seems more like step up the hypocrisy than anything else. In my opinion the original organizers would have been wise to have a "car free day" as a theme common to all stepitup2007 events.

The idea of growth I’m referring to is about “economic and otherwise” as put forth by mworking. Population is one part of that.


As long as you’re the one that already has more or less of what you desire. Try telling China or anyone else their GNP needs to level off at some point in the future.


From an America perspective that may be very well true since there may come a time that ‘maintaining’ standard of living is more of a pressing issue then achieving a higher one. Of course that’s easy to say when your #1 in the world.

Growth at any level is such a basic human desire, if it wasn’t then we all would be sitting around sucking our thumbs and having our diapers changed.

Try telling China or anyone else their GNP needs to level off at some point in the future.

I think you're missing my point. I'm arguing that there may come a point where increased growth might put pressure on resources (water, air quality) so that it makes people less healthy, less productive in the long run. In that case, it would make economic sense to stop growth because continued expansion will lead to a collapse. That's true whether it's in China, the U.S., or anywhere else. (If China's growth leads to local environmental disasters, they'll be sorry they didn't do things differently, regardless of how much stuff the rest of the world may have.) If growth isn't done in a sustainable way, then it can lead to a downturn that leaves people worse off--in which case it would have been better to forgo the growth to begin with, purely from a self-interested analysis.

It's the same with every event. There's certainly a cost, but the assumption is that the benefits of the results, getting the word out, far outweighs the costs. Ironic? Maybe, but no more ironic as Gore taking a jet to each city to which he travels for his presentation. But he gets to do many more shows a year by flying than he would by taking a bus.

I agree, I guess that when those factors kick in it will be way too late to make any difference and the damage already done. When talking about Global Warming isn’t really about ‘prevention’ of the disaster? Unless you are one the few that feel it’s already to late. The notion I’m arguing with is that to try and stop growth in some form or another to curb GW is a futile effort. To me ‘incentives’ go a long way to get countries to do the right thing, then the actual consequences of not doing the right thing.

i would be much more inclined to listen to someone who did pedal to the event then drive. In fact my first question would be how did you get to this event.

The notion I’m arguing with is that to try and stop growth in some form or another to curb GW is a futile effort. To me ‘incentives’ go a long way to get countries to do the right thing, then the actual consequences of not doing the right thing.

I think we're in basic agreement. The first question is whether the cost-benefit analysis favors taking action. The recent climate change report tries to settle that issue by concluding that GW is happening and that human activity is a major driver, but there are still some dissenters out there. If the consensus favors taking action, then there needs to be a mechanism to change behavior. Voluntary agreements to hold down growth are unlikely to work, but cap-and-trade structures and carbon taxes are ways of creating incentives to make personal interests align with the larger general goals people want to achieve, of making self-interest promote global interests.

I think a good analogy is the gas tax. If we're serious about being less dependent on foreign oil, a gas tax makes a lot of sense. Just asking people to drive less or buy more fuel efficient cars won't be very effective. But a gas tax puts all the incentives in the right places without necessarily hurting people at the pump. People would have the incentive to buy more fuel efficient cars, manufacturers would have the incentive to produce them, and you don't wind up spending more when gas is 40% more expensive if your car is 40% more fuel efficient. Plus it would make alternative fuels more competitive. It aligns self-interest with the national interest without depending solely on people's good will to do the right thing.

When science goes bad.