another kick at the climate change cat ... 34

[rb1957]

i think the problems with burning fossil fuels are that we're returning carbon to the atmosphere at an unnatural rate, and that there was a very long interval between when the carbon was deposited from the atmosphere and when it's getting returned to it.

the second problem is meant to say that bio-fuels, which take from and return to the atmosphere over a short timescale, probably won't have the same effect on the global climate as compared to fossil fuels. Though, of course, once we start doing this on a global scale and derive meaningfull amounts of energy this way then there'll be unforeseen side effects.

i think it's reasonable to say that the global climate is changing; and that this would be happening even without mankind's contributions.

i think it's reasonable to say that atmospheric CO2 levels change with climate. i think the record shows that previously (say before the 20th century) that CO2 increased sometime after the global temperature increased.

i think it's reasonable to say that the amount of carbon we putting into the atmosphere has the potential to affect global climate. this is i think too wishy-washy "for the masses" so we're being told carbon is changing the climate ... maybe a simple message but one that has divided those wanting more explanation.

once you say that then i think it's reasonable to ask is this a bad thing, ie do we want to change ? We have to acknowledge that energy is the means to developing our economies. adding hydro, geo-thermal, wind and solar power aren't bad things ... there's a cost and a benefit associated. clearly there are some places that can really benefit for these (because of sustained sunlight or wind or water resources or etc). becoming more efficient in our energy consumption is clearly a good thing, though i suspect that won't gain us significant relief. i worry that developing economies are progressing along the same energy path that the developed countries have used, and that maybe there are "better" choices today.

we can't (won't) stop burning fossil fuels, we need the cheap energy. we can be a little smarter and make power stations more efficient but essentially we're dependent on fossil fuels. we're reluctant to persue the nuclear option, though i wish more research money was being directed at fusion power which i see as the only truly long term option.

it is IMHO nonsense to talk about reducing CO2 production to 1990 (or 2000 or whatever) levels principally because developing economies (China in particular, and probably India as well) are going to be burning more and more fossil fuels. carbon sequestration is also IMHO a nonsense technology unless you're talking about growing trees (and biomass). it is also IMHO nonsense to talk about sustainability ... truly sustainable energy would mean using energy resources at the same rate as they're being created (ie no fossil fuels or nukes) or available (solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal). but then maybe that's one answer to the question, and we'll make truly huge investments in these "green" energies so that we'll increase the fraction of energy we derive from these sources, maybe enough to significantly reduce the carbon output.

if we're going to pay taxes on carbon (through whichever scheme you choose) ... where's the money going ? what's it doing to fix the "problem" ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[beej67]

http://www.cato.org/blog/current-wi...buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[ornerynorsk]

http://news.yahoo.com/secret-dirty-cost-obamas-green-051200204.html

The push started long before Obama, to be fair, but he was a very strong proponent of it, as well. And now I saw in another unrelated article that he is receiving counsel from former pres Clinton on BEING HONORABLE. I don't know whether to laugh or cry, it's too much. What kind of person do you need to be in order to receive counsel from Mr Clinton on honor ?!?!?! Apologies to all of the die-hard democrats out there . . . I'm really sorry that you can't come up with better people.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[rconnor]

Firstly, this has been a really great thread to read through. Rb1957 started things off with an inquisitive and amicable tone that invited conversation and the following posters, on both sides of the debate, have reciprocated in kind. I hope my post, although certainly contentious, can be seen as in a similar light.

Beej67,
I don’t see how that link, with no subsequent thoughts (literally not a letter outside of the link), is relevant to the topic. Models were never mentioned in any of the previous posts. (Also, using a blog post from Cato as a reference for a global warming debate is a little like using The Nestle Institute for a Healthy and Free America (fictitious...hopefully) as a reference for a debate on the effects of excessive sugar intake in children. Although there may be some valid points here and there, the ideological and direct financial bias of the source raises serious questions over the objectivity of the research.)

Orenerynorsk (and in general),
MovingOn (pun) past the political commentary, the concept behind the article you post raises an interesting question, one that I’ve struggled with: Can a truly sustainable, environmentally conscious culture exist within the current capitalist framework? Furthermore, the concept of sustainability extends beyond CO2 to issues such as drinkable water, cultivatable land, deforestation, etc. The crux of sustainability is conservation with smart (limited) consumption. This seems to be the antithesis of the consumption centric, infinite growth paradigm of the current capitalist zeitgeist.

It appears to me that arguments against this point fly in the face of recent, real-world examples. The first example is that, unsurprisingly, some corporations are doing whatever they can to ensure that culture and legislation does not trend towards curbing consumption (Cato being an appropriate example). Less consumption = less sales. This is expected and companies shouldn’t be vilified for it nor should they be trusted to have your/the countries best interest at heart (they don’t). It’s purely the result of corporate Darwinism; those that feel their survival threatened lash out in self defense (and like most forms of Darwinism applied in an anthropogenic sense, it sets a terrible ethical foundation).

The less obvious, and I’d say more malignant, example of the incompatibility of sustainability in current Western-style capitalism comes from what appears to be the “other side” of the debate, namely the profiteering behind apparent “green” products/companies. An example, which was alluded to in the article, is corn for fuel. Agribusiness smells a nice cash cow in the form of ethanol and plows head first into it. They tear up sensitive ecosystems to plant more and ignore nutrient replenishing crop rotation practices to capitalize on short term gains (and subsidies). To ensure they maximize profit margins, they’ll use the cheapest and (usually) least environmental friendly pesticides and fertilizers. But they will stick a green leaf next to their product so that we feel good about it while filling up our SUV. That is the capitalist notion of “green” (there’s a pun in there somewhere). What’s more frustrating about this is that the companies in the first example will parade the obvious failings here as an argument against sustainability or the “green movement”. They will attack the environmentalists that pushed for it and the politicians that gave out the subsidies. Certainly both groups deserve part of the blame for their short-sightedness but what gets lost in the shuffle is this:
The issue wasn’t with the “sustainability movement”, the issue was with the “sustainability movement” when it gets hi-jacked by profiteering.

Another example, one that is near and dear to many here, is the evils of cap-and-trade (again, seen as a “green” initiative). And, as what may come as a surprise, I agree with the that fear. Goldmann Sachs, who has been so successful at the commidification of (and profiting off) aspects of the environment, could finally get to commidify the environment et large. They could, almost literally (ok, hyperbolically), control, charge for and profit off the air we breathe. People are right to fear what exploitations this could lead to. Furthermore, it’s likely that it won’t have as large of a environmental impact as other systems.

It is the disconnect in current Western capitalism between corporations and social responsibility that leads to these sorts of issues. To make matters worse, the amorality of corporations is actually legally defensible thanks to Dodge v. Ford. We as shareholders, employees and consumers are also to blame. We demand great interest rates on our investments, increasing wages and non-increasing prices of goods. But how could we not with constant bombardment of advertisements for contrivances that we “can’t live without” and the ramming down our throats of the material aspects of the “American Dream”? So how, within this framework, can we develop and encourage a culture around sustainability and environmental responsibility?

If we go back to the example of cap-and-trade, I believe a better alternative (if you believe, like molten and I do, that a more “reflective” cost of CO2 is required) is revenue-neutral carbon taxes. However, this is by its very nature a non-capitalistic approach. Furthermore, if you look at B.C., which is a fairly large scale, real-world example of revenue-neutral carbon taxes, the system has been doing quite well, both economically and environmentally. The only major criticism of the system is that people are circumnavigating it by buying gas in border towns (the magnitude of this effect is debatable). Even if there is merit to that argument, it is as much an argument against the tax system as it is a neat little microcosm of globalization. People, within a capitalist society will go to great lengths to search out lower costs even if its cumulative net benefit is mute/negative (in this case: time, emissions and possibly when you include all expenses, money). This appears to further emphasis the fact that a culture of sustainability and environmental responsibility is incapability in current western capitalism.

TL;DR
- Can a truly sustainable, environmentally conscious culture exist within the current capitalist framework?
- Obvious resistance to the environmental movement by those companies that could see reduced profits by cultural/legislative changes
- Less obvious example of the incompatibility is when “green initiatives” are hi-jacked by profiteering
- Example, ethanol production. Leads to unsustainable farming practices to keep production costs down, increase in food prices to keep sales high. Could be bad for both the people and the environment.
- Part of the issue is with short-sighted politicians and environmentalists but the root of the problem is with the exploitative practices to maximize profits
- Corporations are not immoral but amoral (see Dodge v. Ford) in current western capitalism
- Agree that cap-and-trade is bad because it leads to the commidification of the environment which could be exploited by profiteering to the determent of both the people and the environment
- Revenue-neutral carbon tax is a better option. Very non-capitalist concept that has some problems working within a predominately capitalist society

 

[zdas04]

rconnor,
Up to this point we have had a reasonably balanced and civil discussion. No one takes well to being lectured. The thing that annoyed me most in your tirade is the tacit implication that corporations and other business structures are inherently immoral, and the further implication that that is a bad thing. A corporation cannot have "social responsibility", and if it could have that human manifestation of deviate behavior, you would have to ask "who defines 'social'?". An action that measurably improves the lot of one segment of society will often cause significant harm to another segment. For example, a company could see its "social responsibility" as sending all of its third quarter profits to help The Philippines recover from the recent typhoon instead of paying dividends or doing scheduled capital improvements. This action would make headlines all over the country and be lauded by the liberal press. It doesn't matter that a retiree from the company who has all of their retirement in the company's stock might go hungry for the next few months. It doesn't matter that it will default on commitments made to suppliers that could very well put the suppliers' workers on the street.

Every single action that can be taken has a flip side. When a company exhibits some form of "social responsibility" the costs due to unintended consequences can be incalculable. The only protection any of us have from this kind of stupidity is a profit motive of the people running the company. Unfettered capitalism is really the last best hope for the survival of our species. It makes me sad to see you sneer at it.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[moltenmetal]

A corporation is not a person, regardless what the law says. It's a mechanism- an algorithm - for maximizing the profit from the activities of the organization, and hopefully increase the shareholder value of the organization over time. The people working for a corporation are not independent moral actors- they're parts of the algorithm, working within its confines.

The way you affect the behavior of a corporation is to set limits to its activities (by regulation) and to tax either its inputs our outputs. Regulation sets bounds within which the algorithm may work, and taxation affects the profit/loss calculation. Corporations in all democracies to some degree or another, also lean back - they use their money and influence to affect tax law and regulation via lobbying. Most democracies realize this and have at least some limits on what sort of lobbying is permitted, under what conditions it happens, and setting a dividing line between lobbying and outright bribery.

Expecting a corporation to behave in a "socially responsible" fashion is to imply that a corporation will generate more profit or more shareholder value over time if it behaves in a certain way- generally one which is contrary to its calculated short-term financial interest. But unless the means by which the corporation will make more money (at least in future) by behaving that way is clear and calculable, basically what you're expecting is that the directors will allow the management and employees to wilfully violate their responsibilities to the organization because it makes them feel good. As a shareholder, I don't think I would grant that right willingly, because when it is granted it may be just as easily be used for "social irresponsibility" of all sorts.

What troubles me is that lobbying has been so successful that many, many people in Western democracies now see taxation as evil- not even a NECESSARY evil- and regulation as mere "red tape". When government abdicates its role, corporations are allowed to run rampant, and that's not only bad for society at large, it's also not in the long-term interests of the corporations themselves or of their shareholders.

 

[TenPenny]

Unfettered capitalism is really the last best hope for the survival of our species.

Quite honestly, that's likely the most bizarre statement made in this whole forum. Unfettered capitalism? No government regulation or laws of any kind? You think that's a solution for our survival as a species? I don't want to survive in that kind of world, you can have it. But I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't survive for long either.

 

[rb1957]

"Unfettered capitalism is really the last best hope for the survival of our species." ... really ? were banks really held accountable for their role in creating the GFC ? the sub-market mortgage fiasco ? the various episodes of financial looting and then saying "i'm sorry" ??

companies are just like people, they try to act in their best interest. focusing on short timescales invites companies (and people) to lose sight of the long term consequences/costs for short term gains. really large companies (like really rich people) can affect the political environment. Sure they (companies and people) can do "morally correct" things ... cynics will say they these are jestures; i believe some (companies and people) are well-meaning and sincere.

for me "fettered" capitalism is a reasonable approach (but then i'm from north of the 49th). absolute capitalism, and absolute socialism, like absolute power, corrupts (to paraphrase Lord Acton). balancing corporate power with social/community/political power hopefully minimises the excess of either.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[CajunCenturion]

I think what rb1957 means by unfettered capitalism is a free, open, and competitive marketplace.

==> The way you affect the behavior of a corporation is to set limits to its activities (by regulation) and to tax either its inputs our outputs.
Or, you can affect the behavior of a corporation by establishing a free, open, and competitive marketplace so the consumer has a choice.

==> Corporations in all democracies to some degree or another, also lean back - they use their money and influence to affect tax law and regulation via lobbying. Most democracies realize this and have at least some limits on what sort of lobbying is permitted, under what conditions it happens, and setting a dividing line between lobbying and outright bribery.
That is very true, and that is the real crux of the problem. Government is too involved with business and business is too involved in government thus creating an environment where those in power, both in government and business, use each other to stay in power, thus stifling competition. That works in favor of corporations at the expense of consumers.

==> When government abdicates its role
That too is very true. Too many governments have abdicated their role which I believe, should be to ensure that the marketplace is free, open, and most importantly, competitive. Overwhelmingly, the government regulations we have today, under the guise of limiting corporate power or controlling corporate behavior, actually limits competition. The imposed regulatory hurdles make it harder and harder to enter the marketplace, thus limiting consumer choice. I think government should focus on regulations that allow, and in fact, encourage free and open competition.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[zdas04]

Do you guys really see government as part of any solution? The current U.S. president has increased his net wealth 10 fold since he was first elected to the office. That "blind trust" is pretty effective I guess. Nancy Pelosi's husband is the only bidder on a multi-billion dollar project to consolidate post offices. The horrible monopolies that Teddy Roosevelt was famous for busting up were caused by the government creating laws that few were able to capitalize on. Dodd-Frank was touted as the end of derivatives [when the only way to end derivatives is to convince people to stop buying them, not going to happen], but three years later enforcement still hasn't been funded. Expectations are that it never will be. Every bill that reaches the house or senate floor is piled high with cronyism, nepotism, pork, and various other forms of malfeasance. State governments tend to be just about as bad (less money involved so fewer opportunities to create instant billionaires of your children, spouses, and friends). Local governments tend to be more into retail thievery than wholesale (city council critters are more apt to accept a bribe in the form of a trip or vehicle than a direct payment).

Every evil you can point to that was perpetrated in the name of a corporation can be traced to some enabling legislation. Yep, unfettered (and unaided) capitalism is the hope of humanity. The alternatives all fail much quicker than informed self-interest.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[cranky108]

Corporations must focus on short term profits when long term goverment requirements (and taxes) are not stable or predictable. And that all goes back to the fact we don't elect leaders, but instead we elect big mouths (smile big so you can be elected).
Or as they say, you get the goverment you deserve. Elections have effects that result in problems you may face.

And don't forget, other than bloggers, the media is also a group of corporations, that also have an agenda.

 

[rb1957]

would "unfettered" capitalism be similar to Victorian England ? (ie slums, not nice pretty cottages)

sure government policy is full with unintended (possibly sometimes intended) negative outcomes. monopolies ... would those industries (eg, phone) have been created without massive private investment ('cause back in the day there wasn't government investment) and who'd invest without some return (created by the monopoly protection) ?

but is all government policy bad ? i think a problem is that policies are linked to special interests, and so immediately you have people for and against them, and only extremely occasionally does the majority see a policy as "in the best interest of the nation as a whole".

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[zdas04]

Heinlein said "Nothing is more damaging to the public interest than good intentions" [I may not have gotten the words exactly right, but that was the sentiment, it was in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress]. Every single thing the government does has people who benefit and people who are harmed. The people in government know this, and the worst of them actually believe that they are appropriate designators of "good".

Congress said that the "good" was served by building the Glen Canyon Dam, but environmentalists say it is leading to species extinction and increased pollution. Fighting wildfires is "good" until so much fuel builds up that a wildfire sterilizes the ground. In the minds of Congress building incentives for banks to get too big to fail was "good", removing restrictions on what banks could invest in was "good" (even though it increased risk of failure in the to-big-to-fail banks), bailing out banks without requiring them to split up into entities that are not too-big-to-fail was "good". Every single regulation has "winners" and "losers". In my mind a competent federal government would be one that limited its activities to those few things that should not be done by states (like the military and relations with foreign governments) and let everything else filter down to the lowest level (or better yet not be legislated at all).

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[debodine]

I would like to recommend Frederic Bastiat's essay entitled "The Law" at the link below. It is a long but extremely well thought out essay (in my opinion) on the purpose of law, and I believe it supports what David is saying about how capitalism is supposed to work with little to no government regulation necessary. In any case, it will provoke all of us who read it to ponder our premises and process our thoughts, which is something typical engineers can do very well. I know every time I read it I find gems of ideas I missed previously.

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

 

[TGS4]

I'll leave the politics discussion to others - I don't think that there is much common/middle ground to find agreement.

However, since last year's post about the globe not warming in 16 years (thread730-331715), we've managed to have 457+224+51 (and counting on this thread) more replies. And guess what? The warming is still stopped +1 year. The divergence between the GCM predictions and ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS grows every day. There are papers being published that say that the GCMs have failed at the 95% confidence interval.

The notion in the late-80's to early 2000's was that temperature increased (at least the increase from the late-70's to the late-90's) coincident with rising CO2. Some scientists claimed a cause-effect relationship. With continued rising concentrations of CO2, and a halt to the temperature rise, that cause-effect relationship seems to be broken. We're learning every day about natural effects and cycles that affect global temperature that are not at all related to CO2.

So, folks like moltenmetal can talk all that they want about carbon [sic] taxation, but the whole idea of a "sin" tax is to modify behaviour to reduce a "harm". Again, I ask - what harm? ENSO continues in La Nada phase, the solar cycle peak is or has passed, PDO is continuing its turn to the negative, AMO appears to have reached its peak and is tending downwards, so the cyclic climactic aspects are all trending to cooler. There doesn't appear to be any hockey stick of temperatures trending upwards - only flat to cooler. So what, pray do tell, would a carbon [sic] tax accomplish climatically? Do you even have an idea of the price elasticity of carbon-based fuels? Some people can point to Canada's BC as an example - but guess what - their CO2 emissions have INCREASED, coincident with their GDP - in spite of this tax. Well, that accomplished, ummm, nothing...

 

[rconnor]

The thing that annoyed me most in your tirade is the tacit implication that corporations and other business structures are inherently immoral, and the further implication that that is a bad thing

Corporations are not immoral but amoral

This is expected and companies shouldn’t be vilified for it nor should they be trusted to have your/the countries best interest at heart (they don’t)

I made the distinction between immoral and amoral very clear. Humans can be moral or immoral, machines can’t. Machines or, to use molten’s great analogy, algorithms are amoral and can be nothing else. I’m not saying that corporations ought to be socially responsible because, as others have detailed, axiomatically (and I’d argue legally) they can only be socially responsible if it is in the best interest of the shareholders. Molten outlined it perfectly.

Although I’d love to continue on about the role of corporations in society and whether or not they have the duty or even the capacity to reflect some form of social responsibility and the benefits or issues of unfettered capitalism, that is not the point of this thread nor was it the point of my post. As I can be blamed for derailing the conversation, I’ll try to get things back on topic.

My question, which I believe is relevant to the thread and past posts, was not addressed.
- Can a truly sustainable, environmentally conscious culture exist within the current capitalist framework?

The rest of my post was to establish why I feel that it cannot and cultural changes are required. Furthermore, I tried to outline why the current Western zeitgeist turns many “green movements” into things that are destructive to people and the environment. I feel this is an important point as many times it is not the core concept (the sustainability aspect) that causes the problem but the aggressive and short-sighted extent it is taken to, mainly when there is a way to profit from it.

One of the best examples of this is the green and blue revolutions in India (and other developing nations), which were the developing of industrialized agriculture and fishing, respectively. Both had enormous benefits to the people; it saved thousands from starvation and raised the standard of living in those areas. However, both developed so rapidly and so aggressively, with little control, that now they are dealing with economic, sociological and environmental blow backs.

There has been wide scale arsenic contamination of well water caused by fertilization and irrigation. Clean wells are painted green, contaminated ones painted red. If you grow up in a village around a red well, you become a social leper, unable to marry (or be wed). Overfishing has destroyed the coastal ecosystem and, thusly, the fishing industry. Substantive farmers were pushed off their land to make way for industrialized farms, who had better access to credit, and actually widened the economic disparity, especially in rural areas. This actually led to mass suicides amongst many small-scale farmers. (There was also ample Western profiteering but let’s ignore that).

The Green and Blue Revolutions were immensely positive changes, even when factoring in the negative aspects – I do not want to be misunderstood on this point. However, many of the negative aspects were preventable and primarily the result of short-term, profit seeking motives. We need to unpack the concept of Globalized Agribusiness from this example into the technology/fundamental concepts and the application. The technology and fundamental concept is where the benefits come from. The application and extent thereof, done in the framework of quick, short-term individually focused gains under the delusion of the infinite growth paradigm, is where the problems occur.

Replace Globalized Agribusiness with any other example you wish and I believe the sentiment still holds. That framework is, to me, what the problem is and the reason I can’t see an effective and mutually beneficial sustainable movement being able to flourish therein. That framework has to change before that is possible.

 

[zdas04]

That is really worth reading. I love the quote:

The Complete Perversion of the Law
But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?

The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy.

Stupid greed and false philanthropy. That encapsulates my entire argument.

I also like:

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds

"universal perversion of the law", priceless

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

 

[debodine]

David, I am glad you enjoyed it. From many of the arguments you have made on this forum, I have always assumed you to be familiar with this essay. I posted it so others could see why you came to some of the conclusions you arrive at. I would prefer that Bastiat be mandatory reading in the law schools of the United States, but that would seriously reduce the hold that politicians can generate over the masses so I am not holding my breath.

 

[debodine]

Bastiat's concept of "legal plunder" is his most captivating theme, in my opinion.

 

[rb1957]

i tried to break the linkage between increased CO2 and climate models.

i think climate models are at best compromised by our limitations of computing technology and our limited understanding of the complex inter-relationships that influence our climate; at worst the models may be corrupted (in its technological, and not ethical, sense).

i think the record shows that in the past CO2 levels have increased some hundreds of years after global temperatures.

i'm quite prepared to say that CO2 levels affect the climate ... everything affects the climate !

i'm less sure that the increased CO2 levels due to burning fossil fuels are solely responsible for the change in our climate.

then the question in my mind is how will the increased CO2 levels affect the future climate. we are returning CO2 to the atmoshpere in some pretty astounding rates, in a few decades we're returned carbon deposited millions of years ago ... giving rise to carbon non-neutrality.

if the effect is secondary then changing our behaviour won't significantly affect the outcome (inspite of the pain inflicted upon ourselves).

if the effect is significant then we should change our behaviour now; stop burning fossil fuels, let the economy (and the human population) collapse and return (if we're lucky) to the middle ages. maybe it's enough to carefully ration burning ff, and adopt other sources of energy rapidly (though this'll still need a boat-load of money, which'll impact the global economy).

i suspect that we'll make some small change in our behaviour (the "gains" from the developed economies acting more "green" will be swamped (IMHO) by the emerging economies trying to develop as quickly as possible). I suspect we'll see some goverment action that will (IMHO) be ineffective in solving the problem (whether you express the problem as "increased CO2 levels" or as "increased global temperatures"); probably the largest impact will be to make a few people wealthier. I suspect that the future will deal with whatever CO2 level it has and make the best of it, considering it as another component of global climate.



Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[cranky108]

I think there are more people who like what they have today, than there are people who want to return to the middle ages. The genie is out of the bottle, and asking people to live with less is just asking for a riot.

If that isen't establishment enough that we can't go back, consiter that as human knoledge has increased our water consuption per capita has decreased, and at some point our energy consumption should also start to drop. The problem is goverment can't seem to get there part right. Mass transit run by goverment dosen't work very well.

New technology is the answer, but to stiffle it and say caplitalism is the problem is nothing but a method of controlling people.