missy wrote:
How do you prove that a policy has that effect? That it's the policy causing Z?
It depends. My mental model was the over-exploitation of the Ogalalla aquifer. We know how the water got there and how long it took. We know roughly the amount of water there is and we know how much we use a year, as well as how much that amount is increasing. We can easily do the math and work out what happens when you consume a finite resource at such a rate.
None of these are uncertain values, within the accuracy tolerances.
I think that schools across the mid west and west OUGHT to be saying that based on current consumption, a major drought should be anticipated and planned for.
~~
It's almost that clear with regard to global warming. We know that Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere traps solar radiation and changes our climate. We've watched this happen. We also know that the earth is warming--we can also observe that.
What's debated--almost entirely by non-scientists with a financial interest at stake--is the degree to which the earth warms and cools on it's own. However, any natural warming is unrelated to that caused by an increase in carbon. Even if the earth is warming naturally, it's still poor policy to add to that effect with human-caused pollution.
(I thought Tom Cruise was god...)
