"I am failing to understand Fehling's (sic)" - Jason Tan
It's a Chemistry quote so if you don't get it, Fehling's is a type of reagent used to distinguish aliphatic aldehydes from other compounds. Might not be correct because I'm not checking my notes, but then again I'm sure you come to TCS to learn Chemistry.
Anyway, today's post will be about some silly case study I encountered in the Econs paper.
About the Kyoto Protocol and its "permits to pollute". Now if there's one thing I can't understand, it is how you can allow someone to pollute the earth? How dumb is selling permits to pollute? That's like saying "okay we think rape is bad but since overly-desirous men with high sexual drives are going to rape people ANYWAY, let us sell them permits to rape." Similarly, you cannot allow pollution just because people are doing it.
Nevertheless the question went along these lines - "With reference to the economic impacts of heavy industralisation (or basically pollution), discuss the necessity of the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol."
It elicited a simple response.
DUH IT IS NECESSARY. In industrial manufacturing processes, it is indeed inevitable that hydrocarbons and unbroken carbon chains are released into the atmosphere because some organic products are naturally irritants and just would not be broken down. (Then pray that the Economics tutor marking this doesn't know much about Chemistry because this is surely a case of (figuratively) smoking.)
What happens when CFC (chloroflourocarbons) and greenhouse gases reach the atmosphere? They will start reacting with the ozone and before you know it there will be great economic impacts by nature of.. well, nature! The market for catalytic converters as well as gas masks would go up as the humans would only realise their mistake when they realise that day is looking to be more like night and visibility is almost zero at night. And you know sometimes that it's not your inconsiderate neighbours spreading the haze because your country too is mass producing stuff to maintain your economy.
The Kyoto Protocol is a (poor) plan of damage limitation, but it is necessary nonetheless because without it, global warming will take a turn for the worse, icecaps will melt and in the end there will be floods everywhere such that it would kill thousands of lives and economies will crash overnight simply because islands will disappear under the surface and stock markets will soon be wet markets. Drenched and sunk.
Negative externalities will soon become to full-blown total social cost. Societies will die and ggxx and by then there wouldn't be a need to do silly Econs essays because water is everywhere. And then, of course, the good old swimmers and waterpolo guys will be the only one to survive. Which means me. Yay.
Back to the point, the Kyoto Protocol is necessary, though it as sure as hell can be improved.
------------------END------------------
What do you expect me to write for this sort of 25 mark essay?
Econs, it's all about confusing the marker.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment