Plano -
Acting without evaluating the potential effectiveness is a waste of resources -- it is generally not the suggestion to act without evaluation.


Change (such as the ozone depleting chemicals ban) only occurs when it is consistent with the interests of ALL of the parties. -- most of human history suggests otherwise. We'd all love this to be true, but change usually has occured through conflict.


Ludicrous is the belief that we have unlimited resources so that expending such resources on activities that have no hope of preventing the problem

-- We do not require unlimited resources."
-- "No hope" of solution is your opinion, non-scientific and not factually supported.



My self-interest tells me that it is best served when my group takes care of its self-interest. The issue we are talking about is basic game theory.-- oddly, the more interesting applications of game theory are those cases where this not the optimal strategy.

And what makes that action irrational is that it does so with NO HOPE of achieving its goal. --does not gain validity in the repetition.



I have nothing against policies to prevent climate change effects, IF THEY HAVE ANY HOPE OF SUCCESS. -- All suggested measure have potential for success. We cannot demand sufficiency for the first steps of any difficult problem - take those measures which are necessary.