I notice politicians playing a verbal trick on uneducated media listeners.
The trick is to say "the cost of action versus inaction". Shallow listeners will assume that action or inaction are opposite alternatives of the same thing, they are not. Australia will pay both.
The cost of "action" is the cost to Australia of action by Australia. The cost of "inaction" referred to is the cost to Australia of inaction by the world. Hence by paying for "action" Australia will not avoid the cost of "inaction". We will pay both because (if you believe in global warming) China and India have no intent of changing course.
bacci
- Forums
- Political Debate
- Cost of action versus inaction
Cost of action versus inaction
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 38 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
Featured News
The Watchlist
CCO
THE CALMER CO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
Anthony Noble, MD & CEO
Anthony Noble
MD & CEO
Previous Video
Next Video
SPONSORED BY The Market Online