Tsunami

>
> I don't get it. Can you explain it to me? (Honestly)
>

You said, paraphrasing by memory, that we backed out of the Kyoto
protocol and other international environmental regulations, on the belief
that, over time, unfettered freemarket energy technology and other
innovation would outpace damage to the environment. We'd solve the
problems before they happened. In other words, the ends (unregulated
innovation solving all environmental problems) justify the means (no
regulation now, at a short-term environmental cost.)

so this article says:

>
> Let us now look at the comparative advantage of protecting environment
> and thereby reducing the havoc from the growth-oriented
> market economy. Having grown tenfold in the last 15 years, shrimp
> farming > is now a $9 billion industry. It is estimated that
> shrimp consumption in North America, Japan and Western Europe has
> increased by 300 per cent within the last ten years. The
> massive wave of destruction caused by the Dec 26 tsunami in 11 Asian
> countries alone has surpassed the economic gain that the
> shrimp industry claims to have harvested by several times.
>

In other words, the ends in this case (mass death and a net financial
loss, even considering the huge growth industry involved) do not justify
the means (no environmental regulation.).

>> I don't get it. Can you explain it to me?
>> (Honestly)
>
> You said, paraphrasing by memory, that we backed out of
> the Kyoto protocol and other international environmental
> regulations, on the belief that, over time, unfettered
> freemarket energy technology and other innovation would
> outpace damage to the environment. We'd solve the problems
> before they happened. In other words, the ends (unregulated
> innovation solving all environmental problems) justify the
> means (no regulation now, at a short-term environmental cost.)

I said that's one explanation, yes.

> so this article says:
>
> >
> > Let us now look at the comparative advantage of protecting
> > environment and thereby reducing the havoc from the growth-
> > oriented market economy. Having grown tenfold in the last
> > 15 years, shrimp farming > is now a $9 billion industry. It
> > is estimated that shrimp consumption in North America, Japan
> > and Western Europe has increased by 300 per cent within the
> > last ten years. The massive wave of destruction caused by
> > the Dec 26 tsunami in 11 Asian countries alone has surpassed
> > the economic gain that the shrimp industry claims to have
> > harvested by several times.
>
> In other words, the ends in this case (mass death and a net
> financial loss, even considering the huge growth industry
> involved) do not justify the means (no environmental
> regulation.).

What does the shrimp industry have to do with tsunami, and
what does either have to do with environmental protection?
I'm lost! (Sorry)

-Carl