"...a government which is really serious about environmental pollution would not dilly-dally with unenforceable laws which, even if actually enforced, would hardly make a difference...She really is pricelessly unaware of the contradiction she makes in that letter.
Rather, such a government would tackle the major polluters and invest in measures which would really decarbonize Taiwan’s economy..."
Here:
1) An "idle-free" law which might, if obeyed, result in reduced air pollution over time should not be adopted because the consequent reduction in C02 emissions would be extremely marginal and therefore insufficient to prevent further global warming.
2) However, government measures to "decarbonize" the economy should be adopted because they would reduce the carbon emissions of Taiwan... which, in a global context, are... extremely marginal * and therefore insufficient to prevent further global warming.
I think the only way to explain the mangled logic is to suppose that she was too busy feeling good about herself to notice.
* According to the wikipedia entry (and even though I generally distrust wikipedia on controversial subjects), Taiwan accounts for just 0.86% of the total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions across the globe.
Personally, I suspect Flora Faun is a nom-de-plume of Michael Turton. He'd probably deny it. Nevertheless, I have one or two reasons for believing it.
ReplyDeleteThoth - I'm 99.9% sure it's not Turton!
ReplyDelete"I think the only way to explain the mangled logic is to suppose that she was too busy feeling good about herself to notice."
ReplyDeleteAs usual, the complete nonsense by Michael Fagan! You never disappoint, do you?
If you had read the article, Flora Faun did not advocate the anti-idling law as a solution, but various other measures which would actually decrease air pollution. But of course you are too cross-eyed to even notice that.
Oh yes, you actually disappointed! Where is the reference to eco-fascist/communist/whatever is the flavour of idiocy of the day?
I know she wasn't.
ReplyDeleteLook, here's what I said about Flora's argument:
"An "idle-free" law which might, if obeyed, result in reduced air pollution over time should not be adopted..."
See? I know that she wasn't advocating the "idle-free" law and that was half my point.
And it was a point that you failed to understand.