Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 2, 2012 - 03:51am PT
|
Gosh John, that sounds like such a put down. Are you above reacting to the events and the science coming in about AGW?
Naomi starts by wondering why the belief in climate change in the United States has plummeted. I'm wondering what your thinking is on the reason, and how we might get out of the mess we're in.
I don't want your reaction, of course. I'm asking you to look forward to the coming events and fashion an idea about how we, as a planet, can deal economically with the scientifically predicted changes.
I believe it's true that the free-market playbook will not work for much longer. It's based on a greedy pyramid scheme where the very systems that support our lives are at the base of the pyramid that's being sold out.
Still, we know it's a misnomer to say the markets are free. They are anything but, in this world that is run by the corporate personhood. So it is somewhat misleading for Naomi to say we have to throw out the free-market playbook. Instead, what we have to throw out is our current, non-functioning economic system.
True, it might be easy to back up your claim that Naomi is a poor economist. Quite honestly, though, I don't believe you can point to any good economist. Unless you find one who has a better idea than the systems we're currently running.
|
|
Shingle
climber
|
|
Can we imagine one sudden eruption on 35-gigaton scale?
Would be scary. Probably has happened. Far more significant event than anything the climate change debate has to offer. Asteroid impact would be similar. Global nuclear exchange... influenza pandemic... Lots of monsters out there, in the dark, behind the closet door.
Looks from your #s that an eruption 20x pinatubo would equal the annual kyoto reduction, which seems plausible. Of course, eruptions can have climate impacts beyond those caused by CO2 alone.
Thanks for the insight.
|
|
Shingle
climber
|
|
Is that really the kind of "adaptation" you think is no big deal?
Its a very big deal, indeed. And will occur again, despite what anyone alive now does.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
Klein nails it by pointing out the undue influence corporations have on media exposure...Big money talks and mankind walks.....
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
Ms Klein is huffing something good if she expects to be taken seriously by
making wild extrapolations based on the economies and social constructs in
Scandinavia and the Netherlands.
|
|
ydpl8s
Trad climber
Santa Monica, California
|
|
ydpl8s here - My comment on the Kyoto accords and volcanic eruption was mostly a comment on my cynical skepticism of how effective these kinds of accords can actually be. Agreement and living up to agreements are often a real problem. Yes, China has given lip service to attempting to move towards a lessening of greenhouse gases, but do the numbers add up?
Chiloe, you seem to have your finger on the pulse of this situation pretty well. How well is everyone doing? Who are the biggest offenders? What percentage of the worlds energy is being produced by green means? Realistically, how fast is that going to change if it costs more? I know the argument that if enough people start doing it, the price will go down, there's just a hell of a lot of financial inertia there to overcome.
I'm all for it, I do my bit and take public transportation as much as possible. I bought a more fuel effecient car and am working on geothermal projects to help create "greener" energy. I just think we've got a long way to go before we reach any kind of solution and in the mean time I see a lot of what I would call "all ready made up mind science" where people are getting funded to prove an already assumed answer. (I know, this goes on on both sides of the issue)
Let's get on with it and use our imagination to bring all of these new technologies to bear. But just remember, it takes initial financial incentive to get the majority to get on board, sad but true.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Klein's overarching philosphy, that clouds her view in my opinion, is a disbelief in the efficacy of the industrial revolution, and a lack of appreciation that specialization is productive. Her desire for smaller, decentralized production seems, to me, to be a reaction to the last 200 years fo economic progress. Couple that with her implicit belief that those who disagree with her must either be dishonest or brainwashed, and you have the perfect formula for raising animosity and killing dialog. Don't expect anyone with that thesis to convince anyone with whom she disagrees.
I'm sorry that I have nothing nice to say about her views. I don't think they help people understand the debate. They simply lead people to decide by who's one "their" side, rather than looking at the scientific evidence and considering the risks and rewards of our options.
Yes, I'm aware popular support for what I consider to be solid science on climate change has been declining, but I think her blaming it on corporate brainwashing is too simplistic. What's really going on is that an increasing number of people don't think it's worth the bother. There, I blame the sort of attitude that says "either you agree with me or you're dumb and unfit for your job." That sounds too much like The Emperor's New Clothes to most people. The choices we face are all unpleasant. The sort of polemic we get from the Naomi Kleins of the world give people an excuse not to confront the rather harsh reality.
That's where people like Chiloe really help. I personally don't like the idea of being part of an experiment in climate science, but I'm sufficiently familiar with the research to know why this is both unprecedented and scary. The examples that Chiloe and other climate researchers can give really matter. Calling someone a dupe, on the other hand, is a good way to get someone not to listen to you.
John
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 2, 2012 - 02:13pm PT
|
Yes, I'm aware popular support for what I consider to be solid science on climate change has been declining, but I think her blaming it on corporate brainwashing is too simplistic.
So you don't believe that folks get their views of AWG from the Mass Media, where not one single GOP candidate is willing to agree with the science, and many "news" stations portray Climate Change as something in which there is no scientific "proof" or consensus?
Honestly?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
So you don't believe that folks get their views of AWG from the Mass Media, where not one single GOP candidate is willing to agree with the science, and many "news" stations portray Climate Change as something in which there is no scientific "proof" or consensus?
Honestly?
I believe that some people get their "news" from just about any "source" you can think of. I don't however, think that the opposition to the science is really opposition to the science. I think it's opposition to the implications some give of the science. It's rather like the story of smog.
When smog first became an LA phenomenon, the scientific consensus was that it was caused by many factors, but primarily automobile emissions. The LA populace didn't like the implications of that, so they pressed, instead, for the closure of various industrial plants that they thought were emitting smoke that mixed with fog, hence "smog."
The obvious implication of the effect of increased greenhouse gas concentrations is a need to change what people do. Unfortunately, people such as Klein connect her desired return to the pre-industrial revolution with the only solution to anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. The two don't necessarily go together, but many who hear this connection enough, and who consider Klein's prescriptions stupid, conclude that there must be a flaw in the science because the proposed solution is absurd.
Instead of bemoaning where people get information, give them the straight dope, untainted by opinion. Anything else invites unnecessary confusion, confrontation, and counterproductivity.
John
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
give them the straight dope, untainted by opinion. Anything else invites unnecessary confusion, confrontation, and counterproductivity.
Well, the straight dope is that humans are causing an increase in levels of greenhouse gases that will, in time, change the climate. Perhaps already is causing such a change.
So the question is, What do we do about this?
The LA smog problem is actually a nice analogy. It's complex, ongoing, still a battle. Pre-WWII, LA basin was full of smudge pots burning old oil and tires, backyard incinerators, etc. It was a step-by-step battle to slowly reduce pollution sources. A big increase in population in the 1940s made things worse. A terrible smog event in 1952 in London that killed 4,000 really got people excited to clean up the air in LA. Car manufacturers resisted doing anything until legislation forced them to take action, like say, forcing them to install catalytic converters. California is ahead of the curve in requiring less-polluting, more-efficient vehicles. But the car manufacturers still, to this day, resist legislation to improve gas mileage.
Here:
http://www.aqmd.gov/news1/Archives/History/marchcov.html
So, what to do about climate change? For-profit companies won't do anything that will cost them money unless they are pushed. Legislation is required. And that is where things get really interesting....because the alternative to Naomi Klein's real (or alleged) solution is NOT to do nothing.
|
|
bobinc
Trad climber
Portland, Or
|
|
i would also speculate that the average age of people involved in this thread is north of 50. Some of us have kids, so while I know things might get interesting during my lifetime, I'm even more concerned about the next generation's challenges.
As far as I can see, the only approach that gets noticeable results is a different set of price signals.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
As far as I can see, the only approach that gets noticeable results is a different set of price signals.
Hold the calls -- we have a winner!
Though this does beg the question of what the price signals should be. My research has dealt with that and it's been a very discouraging search.
John
|
|
bobinc
Trad climber
Portland, Or
|
|
I'm as green as the next guy, but in the words of some forgotten labor organizer:
"People don't change unless you get behind them and push."
Also, when I drive for work, I take my '97 Tacoma. When gas prices get to aroudnd $4.25/gallon, people in larger trucks start offering to buy my truck. We're just about there again.
Higher prices create more pain. But if some of the higher price goes into, say, less wasteful ways of reaching the same end, there's something to talk about.
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
Read the data out now about ocean acidification due to increased CO2. The rate of change is the concern with these increases, not the levels. But the chance of us doing anything to reverse it in time is the issue for me. Humanity has to get slammed before they do anything.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
Its all good. Climate changes or it doesn't. Ocean rises or not.
The new beach is a block inland from the old beach 100 yrs from now
and your grand kids property value just soared -or not.
The only mistake we could make is wasting resource on the unknown future
before it happens like the Warmists are urging us to do.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Ed, I doubt that we'll find any easlity measurable solution to the economic problem. I've spent the better part of six years navigating to cul-de-sacs. By harping on this point, though, I'm hoping that at least we can talk in qualitative terms about why any particular solution might or might not make economic sense.
Starting with an easy one, doing nothing makes no economic sense, because it ignores massive amounts of research that suggest real, significant, possibilities of catastrophic consequences. Whether we tax greenhouse gas emissions or regulate them is up to the politicians (and the religious economists [ i.e., those who say the market is [or is not] always better than regulation]). I am neither. I think we should be doing one or more of the above.
There will come a point where the regulation or taxation is onerous enough to make us pause, but we're not even to the point where we can see that yet. Instead, I think we're closer to where we were in the 1950's when we allowed cars to pollute freely. That created a situation where both economic theory and fact suggested we were polluting too much.
I acknowledge that there is a much bigger externality at work here than with, say air polution in the LA basin. The lack of pollution controls in, say Mexico City, did not materially affect the air quality in LA. The lack of global greenhouse gas emissions standards, in contrast most certainly affects everyone. That means that we bear the cost of containing greenhouse gas emissions, but share the benefits. Only the politicians can solve that one.
So no, I am not advocating that we do nothing until we can measure its marginal cost and benefit with precision. I am, however, asking that we at least think in those terms when proposing action. I am tired of reading that any proposal to do whatever is ipso facto justified without consideration of its likely cost.
John
|
|
bobinc
Trad climber
Portland, Or
|
|
But don't you (JL) think we are in a classic "boiling frog" situation? That is, to mix metaphors, we study and study and consider and consider (for whatever reasons) what we should do but by the time we finally decide to act, we are (literally and figuratively) cooked?
Also, I'm all for coming up with the optimal "economic" solution, but how can we be sure we've really loaded in all of the externalities before we turn the crank?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
I obviously do think we're in a "boiling frog" situation, or else I wouldn't say we need to take action. I just get tired of pretending those actions were costless.
And I'm still trying to find measurable answers, but we should be acting on the knowledge we have now, rather than waiting to refine what may be unrefinable.
john
|
|
bobinc
Trad climber
Portland, Or
|
|
What sort of price signal adjustments have you considered and what are the consequences?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!