European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Climate Crisis Truthiness ... misleading frames ...

by a siegel
Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 11:05:27 AM EST

Amid the discussions of Global Warming today and in the years to come, vigilance to language, to framing, to nuance is and will remain an imperative as we seek a path forward to a sustainable and prosperous energy future (Energize America).

The Washington Post, today, had perhaps its most extensive discussion of Global Warming, to date ... with the key article front-paged, three full pages in the front section, and the Travel section dedicated to places to visit because:

Climate change is transforming many of the world's most striking tourist destinations. If you want to see them, better go soon.

And, these articles are precursors to a series of articles to come in the Science section about specific Global Warming proposals.

What coverage ... truly giving visibility in the kitchen tables of Washington's elite ... yet, visibility embedded with truthiness, with misleading "known" information that helps skew discussion and debate away from where it should be.

There is tremendous material in these articles ... but truthiness throughout ... truthiness requiring vigilance.

The front page article, online with

Climate Change Debate Hinges On Economics: Lawmakers Doubt Voters Would Fund Big Carbon Cuts begins:

Here's the good news about climate change: Energy and climate experts say the world already possesses the technological know-how for trimming greenhouse gas emissions enough to slow the perilous rise in the Earth's temperatures.
Here's the bad news: Because of the enormous cost of addressing global warming, the energy legislation considered by Congress so far will make barely a dent in the problem, while farther-reaching climate proposals stand a remote chance of passage.

What are some problems here, some truthiness?

Note the title: "Lawmakers Doubt Voters ..." Okay, does the concept of leadership remain in this nation? Are our elected leaders ruled by a wet finger judging the shifting winds? If so, we much focus our efforts to create a strong Climate Crisis coalition such that we are driving the wind, and not fossil fuel polluters.
"barely a dent in the problem" ... absolutely, but will legislative concepts help to foster a path toward a better tomorrow? Will they set the trains running the right direction, signaling to all that America and Americans intend to act, to get things right?
"Climate Change", adopting the Republican (Frank Luntz created) framing of the issue rather than Climate Crisis or Global Warming, or ...
Cost of electricity is cited as mounting, without providing any indication of how the total system cost of energy might just go down through efficiency reducing total requirements. As a matter of fact, efficiency does not receive a fair / meaningful mention anywhere in these articles that I see.
"Enormous cost" misrepresents the situation, the choices ahead, and the system-of-system implications of the situation. What is the "Cost to Own" a fossil-fuel polluting future, with ever worse health implications both for humans and humanity? What is the "Cost to Own" implications of moving toward a sustainable energy future that creates ever greater prosperity for Americans (through creating jobs, reducing (eliminating) oil imports, improving exports), improving American security and the prospects for a more peaceful world, reducing health implications from fossil fuel pollution (Have you had had your hair tested for mercury?), and so on)? The "Cost to Buy" a sustainable and renewable energy future might be less than the cost to continuing mountain-top removal, but the "Cost to Own" of a carbon-polluting future will be FAR, FAR HIGHER. And, that might be an unsustainable cost for all of US, all of us ...

Note that the VA edition's title differed from the online variant: "Climate Change Proposals Seen As Insufficient: Lawmakers fear high costs of major cuts in emissions". The printed version highlights the gap between what is required and lawmakers perception. The online version emphasizes costs and does nothing to relate costs to requirements.

Other articles / online material today:

A lot of worthwhile material ... with embedded misleading truthiness.

Vigilance ...

Vigilance ...

VIGILANCE!

Ask yourself: Are you doing your part to ENERGIZE AMERICA?

Crossposted from Daily Kos.

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Climate Crisis Truthiness ... misleading frames ... | 31 comments (31 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Climate Crisis Truthiness ... misleading frame (4.00 / 2)

As long as all discussions assume that we will live in a capitalist (or market-based if you prefer euphemisms) economy the options are limited.

Capitalism requires growth to function. One has to make more tomorrow to pay back those who provided the capital for the enterprise. Even non-democratic states like China have become capitalistic, at least for most products and services not needed to directly support the regime.

Iraq is a good example. The US invaded and attempted to impose a privatized economy even thought the oil industry (and several other sectors) had been state run before.

Since growth is an unacknowledged axiom any discussions by economists, political leaders or press pundits are constrained to the well worn paths of improving efficiency and modest conservation.

Only the ecological economists are willing to discuss the inevitable results of continued growth. Nobody listens to them and they, themselves, are weak on proposing concrete goals and how to reach them.

The human race is not good at anticipating disasters, even when they are obvious. The recent examples of HIV and regional flooding are perfect illustrations.

I don't have a solution, there are no leaders with vision and the willingness to explain the type of sacrifice that will be needed. Everyone is standing around and waiting for Harry Potter to come down and wave his magic wand. Ain't gonna happen...

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 11:57:05 AM EST

Re: Climate Crisis Truthiness ... misleading frame (4.00 / 3)

Capitalism built upon deficit-based "Money as Debt" requires growth: the mathematics of compound interest demand it.

But Capitalism per se does not.

If a Society decides to "invest" in a "productive" asset which has a value in use (whether or not that use value has a "price" or monetary value) then while that asset may need to be maintained, and/or replaced, there is no reason on God's Earth why the Capital need be repaid.

Land does not depreciate, and nor does knowledge, so why should investment in it be repaid?

The trouble is that "investment" can only take place "privately", so that "ownership" is transferred into private hands using the vehicle of that sociopathic legal form, the "Joint Stock Limited Liability Company".

So by DEFINITION, the Public sector can only borrow to invest, because the only permissible form of investment is to "Privatise".

Complete Bollocks.

Assets may be maintained in public ownership, or in trust on behalf of the public, and revenues or production may be unitised in "trusts", in LLP's or LLC's or in Limited Partnerships yada, yada.

Just look how one of the chief "locusts" - Blackstone - in their so-called IPO did not sell shares in a corporation, but units in a limited partnership, thereby flogging off revenues but keeping control.

So if we get it right, and the tools are already here AND BEING USED - the entire Canadian capital market is evidence of that, where units in Income Trusts are listed alongside the shares of the Companies whose gross profits are essentially being pre-sold - then a system without the growth imperative is entirely possible.

Asset Finance without debt, and "enclosure": "Open" Capitalism, I call it.

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 12:25:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Climate Crisis Truthiness ... misleading frame (none / 1)

WHy do you identify the need to pay a return on capital (your implicit definition of capitalism) with the market? I dont' see by what definition of "market" it "requires growth". I can see how a required return on capital requires nominal growth (but you can get away with less real growth if you have inflation).

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 12:27:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Climate Crisis Truthiness ... misleading frame (none / 1)

Show me an example of a market economy where the traders don't expect to make a "profit".

There have been societies which weren't based upon capitalism (mostly pre-industrial, subsistence), but I think their trade was based upon barter. Could we devise an economic system not based upon capitalism? That's the question I keep asking.

There is a tendency to equate centralized control with failed models like communism and socialism, but China and Singapore have shown that centralization and entrepreneurship can co-exist. Whether this is "optimal" is an open question.

I'm in favor of relatively unfettered entrepreneurship and democratic political stuctures. I think industrial capitalism and its modern variants can no longer address the more complex issues facing the globe.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 01:44:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Climate Crisis Truthiness ... misleading frame (none / 1)

Erm... I think this is a matter of accounting. If you have to feed yourself you can do it by depleting your stock (something you cannot do for very long) or by using the stock to produce more than you started with (profit) and eating the surplus.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 01:49:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Climate Crisis Truthiness ... misleading frame (none / 1)

Indeed. But a "profit" denominated in what?

Within a partnership there is no "profit" and no "loss", but there IS a creation and exchange of "value" in all of its forms, probably by reference to a "Value Unit".

And note here that bank-created money is not a form of Value but its antithesis, because it is a claim over value or "anti-Value"

Value or "money's worth" may be tangible, or intangible. And when intangible it may be definable (ie intellectual property) or indefinable - "spiritual" or "emotional/ sentimental" value.

In the Open Source model and in a charitable transaction there is still an exchange - except that the giver of "value" is getting something intangible and indefinable in exchange, eg a nice warm feeling, or "bragging rights" down the pub......

As I said, I believe that the model now emerging is an "open" form of capital, without a return in "Money" to "rentier" investors.

Return will be in "money's worth" - particularly land/property rentals (domestically) and energy units (internationally).

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 02:14:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Climate Crisis Truthiness ... misleading frame (none / 1)

Chris, how do you define "profit".

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 02:20:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Climate Crisis Truthiness ... misleading frame (none / 1)

Final Demand Inflation?

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 02:24:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Climate Crisis Truthiness ... misleading frame (none / 0)

I don't get it.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 04:01:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Final Demand Inflation (4.00 / 3)

This is a term coined by Gunnar Tomasson in the 1970's while at the IMF: he is one of the founding fathers of "Creditary Economics".

Creditary Economics

Discussion re Final Demand Inflation

I'm interested in it, too, and you'll find me alongside Gunnar and others among the "People" on the above site because I am a frequent contributor to the Gang8 Yahoo list and have been admitted to the inner sanctum. (albeit I do not have the understanding of Economics these guys do...)

I think they are partly right in their "creditary" critique of conventional Economics, but tend to ignore the role of property rights and investment, as opposed to credit.

The following is an interesting quote.

In the context of Say's Law, Profit is always and necessarily the product of Final Demand Inflation whereby the banking system creates New Credit (of, say, 10) for loan-financing of Final Demand for Goods and Services whose Factor Supply Cost is 100.
With Final Demand at 110, Entrepreneurs would be left with Profit of 10 after repaying the original Production Credit of 100. In the accounts of the "banking" system, this would show up as
Entrepreneurial Deposits in the amount of 10 and Outstanding Final Demand Credit of 10.
[Gunnar Tomasson]

You won't currently find Creditary Economics on Wikipedia, not sure why it's been taken down twice, but it does rather tend to debunk the accepted orthodoxy.

Gunnar's run in with Samuelson, and his take on the insubstantial nature of the foundations of neoCon Economics are fascinating. Much good stuff in the Gang8 archives.

Oh. And what is Profit, indeed? It's all relative...

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 05:05:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Final Demand Inflation (none / 1)

Hmm, that's an interesting way to look at Keynes' "demand makes the world go 'round".

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 05:10:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Final Demand Inflation (none / 1)

My first instinct was to call it a supply-side recasting of Keynes, but I refrained. However, Say's law is precisely the reverse of Keynes and the foundation of Supply-side economics: supply creates its own demand.

Are the Gang8 supply-siders, then? That quotation doesn't seen like a critique of Say's law.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 05:15:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Final Demand Inflation (none / 1)

I'm not well enough versed in the definitions, let alone the history, but I think you might find the Gang8 archives extremely interesting.

There are some polymaths there for sure...

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 05:28:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Final Demand Inflation (none / 1)

What they need to do is move into ET ;-)

BTW, is Gunnar Tomasson the same person that wrote this? And the dean of Engineering at Reykjavik?

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 05:37:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Final Demand Inflation (none / 1)

He's retired now, I think, so he's probably not the Dean Of Engineering, but he did write that note, yes. I think his first degree was in Physics.

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 05:51:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Final Demand Inflation (none / 1)

This is really a funny coincidence, then, because there is this guy who has the same name, is hiring faculty for a financial engineering program, is Dean of Engineering and has had an active career in the physics of turbulence for the past 20 years...

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 06:04:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Final Demand Inflation (none / 1)

99% sure it's not the same guy, but everyone's related in Iceland!

As for Financial Engineering, that might be right up your street!

I think it does occasionally get above 10 degrees in Reykjavik....

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 06:41:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Final Demand Inflation (none / 1)

This stuff seems like it would make an interesting diary:

Statement on Creditary Principles

The differentiation of human labour made a credit system essential for the free exchange of goods and services. A direct barter system was inadequate for the fullest possible development of the potential of human industry.

The most potent form of credit was trade credit advanced by one supplier in the chain of production to the next in line.

The debts created by the granting of trade credit are monetised, that is they become a means of exchange. The bill of exchange in all its forms has throughout human history and pre-history been the way of achieving this object, converting a trade debt into a negotiable instrument which is usable as money.

All money is debt, but not all debt is money, though all debts have the capability of becoming money, a means of exchange, by being made assignable.

Money therefore consists of assignable debts, whether it is being used as a medium of exchange or as store of claims on value.

Money is therefore created by the granting and drawing down of loans.

When a bank allows a loan to be drawn down, at the same time the credit balance to finance the loan is automatically created somewhere in the banking system.

Savings are retained financial assets, though the period of retention may be brief or long. As all financial assets are forms of credit/debt, savings automatically come into existence when a new loan is drawn down.

One of the purposes for which a loan may be granted is real investment, that is the creation of new productive assets. It follows that the savings to finance real investment must be created automatically by the spending of a loan to create a new productive asset.

Savings = borrowings (The definition of borrowing in this context includes equity finance).

The encouragement of saving automatically encourages an equal amount of borrowing. There is no reason at all why the borrowing should be solely for the purpose of real investment. Among the many assets it may finance are debtors, work in progress, stocks, or consumer credit.

The only way to promote real investment is to create a favourable environment for it.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jul 16th, 2007 at 04:38:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Final Demand Inflation (none / 1)

It would indeed. There is much I agree with, and quite a bit I don't eg

The definition of borrowing in this context includes equity finance

which defines chalk as cheese, but it's an interesting take on Economics.

You/I could perhaps invite (via the Gang 8 list) one of the proponents to make a debut/ guest diary on ET?

I found the "Privilege" Diary - by one of the noted proponents of Georgism - absolutely excellent in terms of the debate it stimulated.

And thanks for the steer re Wikipedia. You certainly tell it like it is, Don Migeru!

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Jul 16th, 2007 at 06:17:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Final Demand Inflation (4.00 / 2)

You/I could perhaps invite (via the Gang 8 list) one of the proponents to make a debut/ guest diary on ET?

It's best for you (as I can't post diaries from work) to post a diary with either the list of principles or the list of tasks, see what sort of discussion thread develops, and then for you (as you know these people) invite the Gang8 people to read the comment thread once it's developed.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jul 16th, 2007 at 06:27:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Final Demand Inflation (none / 1)

Ok.

But before I post a Diary, I'll see which of them is prepared to wade into this nest of pinko subversives...

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Jul 16th, 2007 at 06:41:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Final Demand Inflation (none / 1)

No, no. If they don't want to wade they don't want to wade. I'll post a diary tonight if you don't do it today, regardless.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jul 16th, 2007 at 06:42:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Final Demand Inflation (4.00 / 2)

Well, I'll do a Diary later, and try and get hold of a couple of them on the phone to fight their corner...

You don't DO patience do you Mig?

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Jul 16th, 2007 at 07:04:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Climate Crisis Truthiness ... misleading frame (4.00 / 4)

Growth or even capitalism are not the issue per themselves.

Ignoring "externalities" is the problem.

The day emitting CO2 has a cost to be paid by the producer of CO2, fossil fuels will be on their way out very quickly. The day oil companies need to pay themselves for the military defense of their supplies, they'll phase out oil and find something else to do.

But for that, you need a liberal democracy as opposed to a plutocratic oligarchy.

by Francois in Paris on Sun Jul 15th, 2007 at 07:09:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Climate Crisis Truthiness ... misleading frame (4.00 / 2)

Very simplistic in response ... but I don't get it.

If the market is well regulated -- including capturing the costs of the 'free ride' impacts -- I do not see why one can not be driving the economy to an ever lower carbon load, even while operating within capitalism.

In any event, there is no such thing as a "pure capitalist" economy in the globe, question is what is balance and how is it regulated.

Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart. NOW!!!

by a siegel (siegeadATgmailIGNORETHISdotPLEASEcom) on Mon Jul 16th, 2007 at 06:45:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Climate Crisis Truthiness ... misleading frame (4.00 / 3)

If it's correctly structured it well "self regulate".

But at the moment the financial system is cancerous, and out of control - a parasite destroying the host.

And yes, the solutions ARE "simple". But no-one paid by the hour rather than the outcome is interested in simplicity.

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Jul 16th, 2007 at 07:12:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Climate Crisis Truthiness ... misleading frame (4.00 / 2)

Climate change is transforming many of the world's most striking tourist destinations. If you want to see them, better go soon.

[sound of head exploding]

hey, climate change is destroying habitat, landscape, cultures, crops and species worldwide. so hop onto that jet plane and contribute to the problem as much as you can.

what IS it with these people?

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Mon Jul 16th, 2007 at 01:45:03 AM EST

Re: Climate Crisis Truthiness ... misleading frame (none / 1)

Isn't that something?

Of course, if you are set on cenyine humans have anything to do with climate change, but the facts are stubborn and you cannot deny the problem any longer...

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jul 16th, 2007 at 01:57:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Climate Crisis Truthiness ... misleading frame (4.00 / 3)

Let us make it worse. Read the opening paragraph ...

Granted, it is still a niche market. But if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is to be believed -- and why not? -- it's a growth opportunity. The traveler in the very near future might be ready for some global warming tourism. Vacation destinations? You could do the Maldives and watch the sea level rise before your very eyes. Glub glub. Bye-bye, happy island nation. Or perhaps a trip to the African Sahel to experience some scary soil evaporation. Subtle, but profound. Or you can do what we did and journey to Icy Bay in Alaska and just watch the world melt.

Written in a typical travelogue, breezy nature.

Turned / turns my stomach.

Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart. NOW!!!

by a siegel (siegeadATgmailIGNORETHISdotPLEASEcom) on Mon Jul 16th, 2007 at 06:42:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Climate Crisis Truthiness ... misleading frame (4.00 / 3)

Granted it is still a niche market. But if the FAO is to be believed -- and why not? -- there is a growth opportunity to travel to various parts of the world and watch people starve to death. Think of the thrill of sipping champagne and eating pate while outside your window you can see:

With the right 'package' you can even watch desperate people fight to the death for the last scraps of food.

And blah-blah-blah ...

Over the top? Not really. That's how Climate Change will be affective wherever people are dependent on subsistence agriculture for their food supply.

Och nu den svenska kocken bakar en Alaskan älg jägare. Bonk! Bonk! Bonk!

by ATinNM on Mon Jul 16th, 2007 at 11:15:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Climate Crisis Truthiness ... misleading frame (4.00 / 2)

My better 95+%'s reaction as well: "Why not tourism packages to Darfur to see genocide or to a famine? What were these people thinking?"

Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart. NOW!!!

by a siegel (siegeadATgmailIGNORETHISdotPLEASEcom) on Mon Jul 16th, 2007 at 11:44:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Climate Crisis Truthiness ... misleading frames ... | 31 comments (31 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]