The Carbon Thread

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Mr Tea, fortunately or unfortunately, most people's opinions are not that important. What are the opinions of the people who actually govern the country (not necessarily politicians, of course!)--that's the relevant question.
What I'm saying is, if issues relating to climate change and environment at large were sufficiently important to a sufficiently large number of people, the Greens would be a major force in parliament, or even form the governement, rather than being a small fringe party that gets a few local councillors here and there.

I think a lot of people are vaguely aware that there is Trouble brewing but either feel that it is suffiently far off in the future or happening far away, or that there's no point trying to do anything serious about it because it's now inevitable, and that even if everyone in Britain became a self-sufficient crofter overnight, what good is that really going to do when China's building car factories faster than we can build cars?
 

vimothy

yurp
BTW, I'm not arguing that anyone has gotten more right wing. That's your argument. My argument is that society as a whole has gotten more left wing over time. This is a secular trend, though there are cyclical variations. Europe is different case to the US but the trend is there all the same.

1960 was the year of the famous "wins of change" speech (a speech given by, one should note, a conservative politician). I would think that dismantling the British Empire was a fairly unambiguously left-wing thing to do, and I don't see signs that it's about to be re-established any time soon. The Union was more left wing than the Confederacy. Tony Blair is more left wing than Lee Kwan Yew. These all seem unambiguous as well.

It's true that there is this thing called "neo-liberalism", and it's also true that there was a significant shift in mode of government around the second world war towards a more expansive technocratic state with large welfare programmes, etc. (Note America's influence in the post-war reconstruction). This isn't about to change, and neoliberalism is more like some kind of intellectual fad amongst our elites about how to be better technocrats, like neuro linguistic programming or similar management bullshit.

"7. Have thirty years of heightened competition, globalization, and neoliberalism decimated welfare states? No, the share of GDP going to social policy expenditures hasn’t decreased on average. Some countries have reduced the generosity of certain programs, such as pensions, unemployment insurance, sickness/disability compensation, and social assistance. But these cuts have been offset by increases in need (more elderly households, higher unemployment), rising health care costs, and new programs such as child care and other family benefits. See chapters 22, 23, 35, 38."

http://lanekenworthy.net/2010/08/25/the-sum-of-all-knowledge-on-the-welfare-state/

But I think it's a mistake to focus on economics. The more important shift is cultural. If you just look at the economics you could end up thinking that the Whigs weren't on the left, or that Germany has gotten more right wing since the Nazis.
 

vimothy

yurp
What I'm saying is, if issues relating to climate change and environment at large were sufficiently important to a sufficiently large number of people, the Greens would be a major force in parliament, or even form the governement, rather than being a small fringe party that gets a few local councillors here and there.

I think a lot of people are vaguely aware that there is Trouble brewing but either feel that it is suffiently far off in the future or happening far away, or that there's no point trying to do anything serious about it because it's now inevitable, and that even if everyone in Britain became a self-sufficient crofter overnight, what good is that really going to do when China's building car factories faster than we can build cars?
Which is why I think that world looks very similar to this one.
 
D

droid

Guest
Sorry VIm, its still one of the most garbled and incoherent arguments Ive ever seen you make:

 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
I just meant that contra some people who've been saying that world oil production must be at a peak around now and that it's bound to decrease from now on, large new oil fields are still being discovered - but of course that finding oil isn't the same thing as being able to extract it.

But as long as there's still resources to make Louis Vuitton handbags, that's the main thing, eh? :)
 
Last edited:

you

Well-known member
Hi Tea, do you know of any good websites where I can get Louis Vuitton handbags?

Anyone got opinions about Osbourne's petrol consumer Vs company tax seesaw? I think it's doomed.
 

griftert

Well-known member
So - all the fossil fuels are coming out of the ground aren't they? Is there any other course of events because I can't see it.
 

HMGovt

Bamber Clatscoigne
So - all the fossil fuels are coming out of the ground aren't they? Is there any other course of events because I can't see it.
Yes, solar is approaching parity with fossol fuels and will soon become cheaper.
Driverless vehicles = electric vehicles
Thorium cycle nuclear energy.
"Fusion in 30 years"
Pandemic or war kill 65% of the world's population, reducing demand.

It'll be fine.
 

griftert

Well-known member
Yes, solar is approaching parity with fossol fuels and will soon become cheaper.
Driverless vehicles = electric vehicles
Thorium cycle nuclear energy.
"Fusion in 30 years"
Pandemic or war kill 65% of the world's population, reducing demand.

It'll be fine.
I can't tell the tone of this post.
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
It's standard hmg technological optimism and social pessimism. I think it's basically earnest despite glib tone
 

griftert

Well-known member
'Technology will save the day' is the standard response to these concerns. Isn't the obvious conclusion to take from all this is that technology was a huge part of the problem all along? And that we need less technology, not more?
 
Top