Anti Global Warming Tech?

D

droid

Guest
Actually I don't think this is as self-evident as all that. Unless I missed it - I haven't seen any discussion here of the argument that redistribution may be a better way forward than "growth," or at least as important.

Of course it matters what you mean by growth - but if it includes bringing the less developed world up to first-world levels of consumption and waste I think we've got a problem.

Or does people's definition of "growth" include reducing first world levels of consumption and waste?

Havent you read the news? Its the end of history, and growth is the only game in town, regardless of the consequences.

Most of the worlds population seem to agree with you though.


Anyway, this is all prime thread hijack fodder...
 
D

droid

Guest
A few more points:

On discount rate

It is even more implausible given that future generations will be much richer than those now living. According to Mr. Nordhaus, the assumptions used in the Stern Review imply that per capita yearly consumption in 2200 will be $94,000 as compared with $7,000 today. So, is it really ethical to transfer wealth from someone making $7,000 a year to someone making $94,000 a year?[/INDENT]

This argument misses an the obvious point, which is why I assume you haven't pursued it - the cost of doing nothing.

If (as predicted by scientific consensus) the effects of climate change are severe, then the 2200 person will not be consuming $94,000, because events in the meantime will have restricted their ability to produce and consume, if the effects are catastrophic, then they may not be consuming anything at all!

Lomborg is happy to take the least severe (and out of date) information on the effects, calculate a cost and say 'its not worth doing anything about it'. The author you quoted is happy to 'forget about global warming', which makes the exercise totally pointless. You seem to think that because the cost is not economically quantifiable at the moment that its OK to do nothing.

All of these approaches are unethical.

Maybe, maybe not. But pejorative and CAPITAL LETTERS don't make the case for you, at least as far as I'm concerned....

...Well, it's all pretty predictable and boring, right down to the pointless arguments about question marks, whose metaphor is better and dismissal of "ideologues"

You speak of pejorative, when your input to this thread started with glib dismissals, and advanced to snide stereotyping when challenged:

I think we should stick to our assumptions, which are nearly always right, and all live in mud huts and weave yoghurt.

If your going to complain about low standards, try not to lower them at the first opportunity..

As for ideology (i never used the term 'Idealogue' in reference to you BTW):

This statement, in tone and content, is a statement of ideology:

On the other hand, we could try to encourage growth because

* growth is the only thing that will pull billions of humans out of poverty

You've taken something that is contentious and debatable (that growth within the current global economic framework is the only way to help developing nations) and stated it as an absoulte certainty.

If I were to say:

On the other hand, we could try to encourage prayer because

* prayer is the only thing that will pull billions of humans out of poverty

or

On the other hand, we could try to encourage Marxism because

* Marxism is the only thing that will pull billions of humans out of poverty

You would die laughing.

Now, whether or not your belief is based in fact is a topic for another thread, but are you really that insulted by the assertion that you are a true believer in global trade liberalisation? In some ways its a compliment, as many of your fellow travelers are motivated by far less noble aims...;)
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Actually I don't think this is as self-evident as all that. Unless I missed it - I haven't seen any discussion here of the argument that redistribution may be a better way forward than "growth," or at least as important.

Of course it matters what you mean by growth - but if it includes bringing the less developed world up to first-world levels of consumption and waste I think we've got a problem.

Or does people's definition of "growth" include reducing first world levels of consumption and waste?

It also matters what you mean by 'redistribution'. Some village in Africa isn't suddenly going to get a school or some clean drinking water just because I decide to stop drinking or something - unless I decide to give my money to a charity that's going to provide these things, which is widely agreed to be an approach suited mainly to the alleviation of acute humanitarian crises, and not any kind of substitute for proper development. But if you're talking about things like exploitative trade practices and the protectionist policies of developed-world governments, then yes, there are obviously things that could be changed to make a huge difference to third-world poverty levels that don't necessarily involve economic growth*. On the whole, though, I don't think very poor countries are going to stop being very poor without there being growth of some kind, even with a level playing field - I mean, how can there?

I totally agree about the questionable uses that money and resources are often put to in developed countries, though:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31049

*one of which, before Vim beats me to it, is the appallingly corrupt and repressive nature of the regimes in many of these countries - though if we're going to mention these, it's only really fair to do so in the context of the post-colonial mess a lot of places were left in last century and haven't recovered from, political meddling, sponsored coups and all the rest.
 
D

droid

Guest
A Critique of the Stern Critics.

Debating Climate Economics: The Stern Review vs. Its Critics

Contains the memorable line:

"Lomborg also echoes many of the other criticisms discussed here, and asserts that Stern must be wrong because Nordhaus is known to be right...":D

And makes a very good point ignored by a purely economic analysis:

The profundity of human and ecological loss implied in the portraits of climate change, especially at higher temperatures, is only cheapened and diminished by pretending that all of it has a price. At the depths of greatest tragedy, as at the heights of proudest collective response, we leave the market far behind. The reason to avoid another world war is not primarily because repairing bombed-out buildings is so costly. The urgency of preparing wisely in advance for two, three, many Hurricane Katrinas is not strengthened by a hypothetical monetary valuation of the lives lost to the storm in 2005. Our moral obligation to protect the lives and livelihoods of future generations is not adequately conveyed by a numerical discount rate – even a low one. How could any estimate of the social cost of carbon bring these overarching ethical concerns back into the calculus of the marketplace, telling us precisely how to think and how much to care about our responsibilities to society, nature, and future generations?

Another report on the costs of climate change:

Climate Change -- the Costs of Inaction

...by 2100 this would avoid ¢12 trillion a year in annual damages by spending €3 trillion per year on climate protection...

...Even $74 trillion may be an underestimate of the enormous but uncertain costs....​

Worth reading for a good overview of potential consequences and potential costs.
 

vimothy

yurp
Worth reading for a good overview of potential consequences and potential costs.

Will respond (probably at boring length) as soon as I have time. For now, I just want to address something that I think is not helping the debate here. Just as when I say "growth", I don't simply mean an improvement in the total amount of short-term profits in any given period (or any other reductive missinterpretation), when I say "cost", I don't simply mean financial / monetary cost (though financial cost is in some sense a measure of the wider impact), I mean the full range of effects. Hence, (negative) consequences = costs; (positive) consequnces = benefits.

Regarding growth itself, it is the process whereby people make better use of their resourses. There is nothing contentious about my statement that "growth is the only thing that will pull billions of humans out of poverty", properly understood. It's practically tautological. It's certainly not ideological, and it has nothing to do with free-trade, necessarily, unless people decide that free-trade is a vehicle or engine of growth (something that actually is contestable and contested).

The problem I have with this thread, droid, is that you seem to assume that I am much more stupid than you are merely because I don't share the same political views. You compare my (in fact pretty standard) formulation that growth is the answer to global poverty to someone who for no reason (other than, I suppose, "ideology") thinks that praying will reduce global poverty. Firstly, I don't think you understand what is meant by growth. Secondly, not only is the idea that those who disagree with you are "believers" not very charitable, it starts the slide into non-think you are ostensibly critiquing.

My comitment to any political policy or economic mechanism is based on nothing more ideological than pragmatism. If free-trade doesn't "work" (in whatever way is needed), fuck it off. If it does, use it because it is fit for purpose.
 
D

droid

Guest
The problem I have with this thread, droid, is that you seem to assume that I am much more stupid than you are merely because I don't share the same political views. You compare my (in fact pretty standard) formulation that growth is the answer to global poverty to someone who for no reason (other than, I suppose, "ideology") thinks that praying will reduce global poverty. Firstly, I don't think you understand what is meant by growth. Secondly, not only is the idea that those who disagree with you are "believers" not very charitable, it starts the slide into non-think you are ostensibly critiquing.

...

Ok. Just to make two things clear before you continue.

One - I don't think you're stupid for not sharing my views. Far from it. The problem I have with your attitude in this thread is that you seem to think everyone else is. And your glib and jaded 'oh why dont these people understand simple economics' reactions are pretty tired IMO. You seem to constantly play the 'smarter than thou' card, simply because you view everything through
the prism of economics...

Secondly, I have a perfectly good understanding of what 'growth' means. What I didn't understand is what you meant by 'growth'... and to be fair, as you know, there are multiple meanings, and multiple ways to measure it - beyond simple GDP per capita, and therefore multiple interpretations of unclear statements.

My comitment to any political policy or economic mechanism is based on nothing more ideological than pragmatism. If free-trade doesn't "work" (in whatever way is needed), fuck it off. If it does, use it because it is fit for purpose.

Ok. Good. From my point of view, it looks as if your opinions on other matters (such as the likely consequences of climate change) are influenced by the ideological leakage of those who share your economic beliefs (for whatever reason).
 

hucks

Your Message Here
This may include a lot of what druid mentioned above, but it gets the thread back on track, no? I like the idea of a man made volcano. Which sadly is not what the scientists seem to be proposing. Shame.
 
D

droid

Guest
This may include a lot of what druid mentioned above, but it gets the thread back on track, no? I like the idea of a man made volcano. Which sadly is not what the scientists seem to be proposing. Shame.

'Druid' :D That really makes me sound like a mud hut yoghurt weaver...
 

hucks

Your Message Here
'Druid' :D That really makes me sound like a mud hut yoghurt weaver...

Apologies! And to make it even worse, it was gnome who I should have been referring to. So I crossed gnome with Droid, went a bit Dungeons and Dragons and got Druid...
 
D

droid

Guest
Apologies! And to make it even worse, it was gnome who I should have been referring to. So I crossed gnome with Droid, went a bit Dungeons and Dragons and got Druid...

LOL. Well maybe the gnomes and the druids will get together and save us... who knows what could happen in the unknowable and mysterious future. ;)
 

hucks

Your Message Here
LOL. Well maybe the gnomes and the druids will get together and save us... who knows what could happen in the unknowable and mysterious future. ;)

Well, it's either that or seeding the oceans. I'm backing the druids on this one.
 
D

droid

Guest
To labour the point somewhat - heres an article from todays Irish times that succinctly outlines the range of risks and possible costs of climate change:


Even the conservative estimates of global climate change mean serious changes ahead, writes John Gibbons

THIS COLUMN last week offered the injunction that humanity would permit our planet to heat by two degrees Celsius at our peril. Given that on a typical Irish summer's day, temperatures may lurch by more than 10 degrees, you would be entitled to wonder, what can possibly be so serious about a mere two-degree average rise?

This is the difference between weather, which changes constantly, and climate, which is calculated over long periods. If you threw a dice once, you could get any result, from one to six. That's like today's weather. If you threw the same dice thousands of times, you would get an average of around three. That's climate.

Right now, human-driven activity is in a sense changing the spots on the dice; this in turn is shifting the averages upwards. Natural systems are highly sensitive to climate averages, and these are now rising a lot faster than nature's ability to adapt.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its fourth assessment report, set out possible temperature rise scenarios for the 21st century. These range from 1.8C to 6.4C. The lower figures assume urgent steps are taken to cut global emissions, and the higher reflect the business-as-usual path.

In Charles Dickens's classic, A Christmas Carol , Ebenezer Scrooge, the bitter old miser, is visited by The Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come, and shown the fearful future that awaits him. Happily, old Ebenezer changes his ways - and thus his fate. A contemporary reworking of this morality story might be renamed A Carbon Carol , with the Ghost of Celsius Yet To Come the spectre sweeping us on a terrifying journey across coming decades. Gentle reader, come join us now, if you dare.

One degree: (this is happening right now - droid) The first stop on our journey is almost upon us, as the world has already warmed by 0.8C from its pre-industrial average. In a one-degree world, the melting of the Arctic sea ice continues apace. The top of the world will most likely be free of summer ice in less than a decade, while mountain glacier systems continue their headlong retreat.

A sustained one degree rise eliminates fresh water from up to a third of the world's land surfaces by the end of this century. Species extinction, already in full flow, intensifies.

Two degrees: This is the line the EU has been warning us about. The world's oceans turn acidic due to high levels of dissolved CO2. This further weakens the marine food chain. Corals also bleach and die on a massive scale.

Weather extremes, such as the 2003 heatwave in Europe that left so many thousands dead, are routine. High temperatures cause serious crop losses, leading to food shortages.

Severely stressed trees and plants begin to emit, instead of absorb, CO2. This is a "positive feedback" leading to still more warming.

The Arctic region is already heating much faster than global averages. At two degrees the massive Greenland ice sheet may be doomed. Greenland melting will, over time (it could be as little as a century), push up sea levels by seven metres and literally redraw the map of the world.

The massive Himalayan glaciers that supply fresh water for most of Asia buckle in a two-degree world. The river systems on which China, Pakistan and India depend are all but doomed. Meanwhile, between a third and a half of all species on Earth face extinction.

Three degrees: Mass starvation, due to worldwide crop failures related to heat and water shortages. The seven million square kilometres of the Amazon dries out and burns; the world has lost its lungs. Stressed soils as well as vegetation spew out CO2. The carbon cycle effectively collapses.

Four degrees: Millions of refugees flee inland to escape coastal inundation. Food and water crisis approaches critical level. Massive fatalities. Political chaos and violence; almost total economic collapse. Thawing of permafrost injects billions of tons of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere, fuelling runaway heating.

Five to six degrees: hell on Earth. Total societal collapse, billions of deaths. Oceans lifeless. Massive sea level rises and super storms add to the misery for survivors. Most species approach extinction. Deep ocean warming destabilises deadly methane hydrates, causing destruction on a par with a nuclear holocaust.

As Mark Lynas, author of Six Degrees - a book which synthesises findings from hundreds of major scientific studies - warns, at the end of the Permian era (which took 30 million years to recover from - all traces of human civilisation will be gone in less than 5 million... - droid) some 251 million years ago a global temperature rise of six degrees caused the most severe extinction ever, with 95 per cent of species wiped out.

It bears repeating: the IPCC represents conservative scientific consensus, yet within its spectrum of scenarios for this century alone lie the six clear steps to climate hell. How long these scenarios might take to play out, nobody knows.

We share Ebenezer Scrooge's good fortune in being shown the future in time to save ourselves, if we choose. We can still keep that needle below two degrees - but only just. It won't be easy, but considering the alternatives, it has to be worth our best shot.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0529/1211830550299.html


If there is convincing evidence to suggest that the IPCC is mistaken in its predictions of the range of climate change effects - let's see it. Otherwise, apart from some Deus Ex Machina event, it doesn't seem that we can avoid these predicted consequences without significantly reducing CO2 emissions.
 

noel emits

a wonderful wooden reason
I don't like the sound of this - it's just like what dr octopus was trying to do in spiderman 2 innit :eek:
I'm going to watch that film later, not seen it before.

But you know, what's so bad about having eight arms? More fingers to cross.

I think calling what they are doing 'cold fusion' is a bit of a misnomer though, almost a deliberate slight because they don't actually know what is happening in the observed reaction.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Why is every climate-change denier a thread-rotting cunt?

I ask purely for information.

Are you talking about vimothy?

As far as I can see, he's not a climate-change denier per se, he just denies that climate-change amelioration is more important than uninhibited economic growth in the developing world. Is that fair, vimothy?
 

vimothy

yurp
Are you talking about vimothy?

As far as I can see, he's not a climate-change denier per se, he just denies that climate-change amelioration is more important than uninhibited economic growth in the developing world. Is that fair, vimothy?

Kind of -- I'm not a climate change denier. I am interested in finding out the correct balance between "climate change preventation or amelioration"* (which might have a negative effect on economic growth), and economic growth (which might ameliorate some or any of the effects of climate change). As an arbitrary example, climate change, according to The Stern Review, will increase incidence of deaths from malaria and diarrhea. Preventing further climate change to prevent these outcomes is not necessarily more efficient than promoting growth in the very poor regions of the globe susceptible to these (relatively easily solved) threats.

Not a radical position, I think. In fact, it's no different to Stern's position, or droid's, except that they've made their minds up, and I haven't.

Been reading a lot of climate change lit though, and am going to post when / if I have time and my computer starts working properly.

EDIT: *I'm thinking of this as a kind of hedge or insurance against climate change
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
...and economic growth (which might ameliorate some or any of the effects of climate change)

There are certain aspects of climate change that MIGHT be ameliorated by economic growth - namely through the invention of cleaner technologies* - but I hope you're not blinding yourself to the fact that this is going to be vastly exceeded by the *acceleration* in climate change, caused by that very same growth!

*which, in any case, are likely to be more expensive than older, dirtier technologies, and are likely to be invented in the richer, developed countries, rather than the developing countries where most of the growth is occurring...

Edit: ahh, ok, just seen your edit.
 
Top