Comments on: Avoiding the “‘technology trap’ trap” http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/avoiding-the-technology-trap-trap/ Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:24:56 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Eli Rabett http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/avoiding-the-technology-trap-trap/#comment-73 Eli Rabett Sat, 09 Aug 2008 15:06:45 +0000 http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/?p=314#comment-73 I would recomment (Eli always does) J. Willard Rabett's Rules 1. Adaptation responds to current losses. 2. Mitigation responds to future losses 3. Adaptation plus future costs is more expensive than mitigation, 4. Adaptation without mitigation drives procrastination penalties to infinity. I would recomment (Eli always does) J. Willard Rabett’s Rules

1. Adaptation responds to current losses.
2. Mitigation responds to future losses
3. Adaptation plus future costs is more expensive than mitigation,
4. Adaptation without mitigation drives procrastination penalties to infinity.

]]> By: Mikkel http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/avoiding-the-technology-trap-trap/#comment-72 Mikkel Sat, 09 Aug 2008 13:40:39 +0000 http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/?p=314#comment-72 "I’m sure that many of you have noted the large overlap between those who reject the basis of (and not-uncoincidentally, centrally-planned action on) climate change and those who are suspicious/hostile to government in general." Talk about generalizing? Besides that it is pretty obvious and logical - if you are agains central planning in general it follows to question central planning with regards to climate issues. Consider also the lack of uniformity in the world with regards to present level of central government control. Europe in general is far more centrally controlled - resisting 'more' central control in one country is not the same as it not making sence in another country. Besides on the note of the startingpoint with technology=delay and more delay. A classic argument from Kyoto-supporters in Europe have been to argue action now as not ruling out more research. Both can be done. However at the end of the day when the budget is up for amendment they do not support more research. Why not do what we can do today with existing technology but also do research. You are stating a false dichotomy and stereotyping all 'tech-geeks' as opposers to global warming imho. “I’m sure that many of you have noted the large overlap between those who reject the basis of (and not-uncoincidentally, centrally-planned action on) climate change and those who are suspicious/hostile to government in general.”

Talk about generalizing? Besides that it is pretty obvious and logical – if you are agains central planning in general it follows to question central planning with regards to climate issues.
Consider also the lack of uniformity in the world with regards to present level of central government control. Europe in general is far more centrally controlled – resisting ‘more’ central control in one country is not the same as it not making sence in another country.

Besides on the note of the startingpoint with technology=delay and more delay.
A classic argument from Kyoto-supporters in Europe have been to argue action now as not ruling out more research. Both can be done. However at the end of the day when the budget is up for amendment they do not support more research.
Why not do what we can do today with existing technology but also do research. You are stating a false dichotomy and stereotyping all ‘tech-geeks’ as opposers to global warming imho.

]]>