The Third Way in Climate Policy | 149 comments (149 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: It's all going anyway (3.66 / 3)

I think this comment perfectly encapsulates why your perspective on global warming enrages me. It is bound up in a desire for radical social change, with a hatred for modern industrial technological society. I on the contrary find that society to be an enormous improvement over what preceded it - not because I don't know what it was like, but because I do. Yes, peasants can (and do) have happy and fulfilling lives. I've seen that. So can coal miners and sweatshop workers. The defenders of the practices of multinational companies in the developing world tend to dismiss those who suggest that things can, and should be better in the same way that you dismiss those who don't find small scale subsistence agriculture to be a particularly attractive mode of life. I find your view to be part of a long tradition of ahistorical rosy eyed romanticizing of 'traditional' life and the vision you promote a hellish dystopia.

It also leads you to dismiss any incremental changes as insufficient to deal with the problem of global warming - which on an individual basis each of them is, but collectively they can make a huge difference. To take one example, you favorably quote a person saying a car based transport system is unsustainable. What does that mean? If we were to increase gas mileage fourfold while cutting total use by half would it still be unsustainable? Would that not still be a car based system? The former is relatively trivial, the latter much more difficult, but still far less so than the kind of changes you propose.

You're right, we do need to make our economic system environmentally sustainable and more equitable, but your solutions are at least as destructive as simply doing nothing and letting the environmental disasters accumulate.

At the bottom our dispute is a philosophical and political one and has nothing at all to do with the problem of climate change per se - as you yourself point out. My ideal society looks a lot like the standard Western European social democratic one. Yours looks very different. I want to adjust to climate change in a way that preserves as much as possible of that way of life while allowing the rest of the world to reach that level. You see it as an opportunity to destroy that society and make sure that the rest of the world doesn't turn into it. Your basic values are as far from mine as those of the most doctrinaire neoliberals, if in very different ways. There are others on this site who are close to your views, but you express the most radical ones in a particularly eloquent and forceful fashion, so my ire focuses on you. It's not personal.

by MarekNYC on Sat Jan 6th, 2007 at 01:21:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's all going anyway (4.00 / 4)

My ideal society looks a lot like the standard Western European social democratic one.

In what aspects? The freedom to...live how you prefer?

I want to adjust to climate change in a way that preserves as much as possible of that way of life while allowing the rest of the world to reach that level.

I think this is where the discussion is not ideological but practical. It is impossible (resource-wise and climate-change wise [if we accept that human pollutants affect are changing the worlds climates]) to bring seven billion people to the lifestyle of western europeans. This is because western eruopeans use (or exploit--that would be the ideological edge) the resources of non-european areas of the planet in order to maintain their western lifestyle.

An example. What happens if the places in the world that have oil...use their own oil for their own purposes? What happens to the western european lifestyle?

Another example. What happens if the places in the world that have gas...use their own gas for their own purposes?

There are a lot of etcs there, but the key point is this:

We are the creme de la creme, the richest 0.05% of the world's population. Your point seems to me to be akin to Marie Antoinette wishing everyone could eat cake... It ignores the processes that underlie your and my lifestyles.

But yadda blah. Let's concentrate on one element.

that preserves as much as possible of that way of life

Which parts of the western european lifestyle do you see as non-negotiable? I would take transport as an example. Do you mean "the right to drive a car where you want"--or do you mean "the right to an effective transport infastructure"?

It's a question I'd like to ask everyone:

What are the necessary parts of your lifestyle?

For me:

sewage systems
clean water into the house/flat
at least one heatable room for when it gets cold
food (that doesn't poison me or the people who produce it)
culture--...but as long as there are humans there'll be culture...
Hmmm. Some electrical devices--the washing machine! My lord, yes! The washing machine! So we need electricity.
And we need metals of various kinds.
An emergency medical centre within an hour of my house. (With helicopters...oh, do I add helicopters?)

It's an interesting question: what could you give up and...a month later you wouldn't notice it was gone? And what would you still be pining for four decades down the track?

I forgot to mention shoes! Shoes are necessary! And beer! And mari...

Hey, hey! I meant maritime...things...boats...

But I need a functioning biosystem as well, and I'm not sure if you're denying that it is being f--ked over over large parts of the planet, or you think that is an ideological position.

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Sat Jan 6th, 2007 at 03:55:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's all going anyway (4.00 / 2)

Hey, Marek (and everyone else), I think you'll enjoy this...

George Carlin

Thoroughly, thoroughly recommended.

We're so self important. Everybody's got to be saving something now...

Save the trees, save the bees, save the whale! Save those snails...

And the greatest arrogance of all?

Save - The - Planet.

What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet? We don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another. We're gonna save the fucken' planet? I'm getting tired of that shit.

And then...

Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine.

The people are fucked; but the planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great!

Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no40BlyA3YQ&mode=related&search

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpIQG3g03hw&mode=related&search

One more quote, from Part 2.

And if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into to a new paradigm: the Earth plus plastic. The Earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the Earth. The Earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place: it wanted plastic for itself, but it didn't know how to make it. It needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old philosophical question:

Why are we here?

"Plastic--assholes."

So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now, and I think that's really started already, don't you? I mean, to be fair the planet probably sees us as a mild threat, something to be dealt with. And I'm sure the planet will defend itself in the manner of a large organism, like a beehive or an ant colony can muster a defense, I'm sure the planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet trying to defend against this pesky, troublesome species? ...hmmmm....let's see. Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses...

(Hat tip to Uncle $cam at moonofalabama.org for the link)

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Sat Jan 6th, 2007 at 06:20:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's all going anyway (4.00 / 2)

I think this is where the discussion is not ideological but practical. It is impossible (resource-wise and climate-change wise [if we accept that human pollutants affect are changing the worlds climates]) to bring seven billion people to the lifestyle of western europeans. This is because western eruopeans use (or exploit--that would be the ideological edge) the resources of non-european areas of the planet in order to maintain their western lifestyle.

I believe it is possible to maintain a West European level using far fewer fossil fuels than we do now.

An example. What happens if the places in the world that have oil...use their own oil for their own purposes? What happens to the western european lifestyle?

You mean what happens when Western Europe has nothing to export to the countries which have oil. And in any case I'm positing a future where the West European (and developed world in general) uses far less oil.

We are the creme de la creme, the richest 0.05% of the world's population.

The developed world - North America, Pacific Rim, Europe has a somewhat larger population than that. To that you need to had the 'middle' class of many developing nations (as the press likes to refer to the top ten or twenty percent in those places).

It's an interesting question: what could you give up and...a month later you wouldn't notice it was gone? And what would you still be pining for four decades down the track?

Who knows. In any case before we get to DA's agrarian utopia (think LeGuin's in Disposessed or Kim Stanley Robertson's in Pacific Edge for the pessimistic and optimistic versions) most of us will be dead of starvation (the social collapse that will precede this new form of life) or an executioner (repressive regime hellbent on transforming society against its will). Because that's the only way that could happen. People aren't going to vote for it. Contra DA there is far more social mobilization for more technological and consumer goodies than there is for a back to the land concept. The folks in the third world urban slums aren't asking for the same thing just in a pretty rural setting. The poor in Latin America supporting Chavez are doing so in the hope that they'll finally get some of what the bourgeoisie has long had.

I prefer to concentrate on practical measures - such as those Jerome has been pushing in his Energize America plan. If we can drastically cut the use of oil for transport, and do the same with fossil fuel use for electricity generation I'll be quite happy. Both are technologically feasible without blowing up our society and building it up again on radically different lines. Gradual change may be frustrating, but it's a lot less bloody than the alternative.

by MarekNYC on Sat Jan 6th, 2007 at 08:37:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In the US the most direct thing we could do (4.00 / 2)

is revitalize rail transport and discourage automobiles. No new tecnology is needed.

Can it get on the agenda?

(Yes, I know this won't work in the "Sunbelt." NOTHING will work in the Sunbelt. How the folks living there plan to face up to that I have no idea.)

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Sun Jan 7th, 2007 at 03:12:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In the US the most direct thing we could do (none / 1)

NOTHING will work in the Sunbelt.

The pessimist in me wants to tell you not to worry: there's a good chance their water will run out before fossil fuels do.

Talk about unsustainable lifestyles...

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Sun Jan 7th, 2007 at 06:53:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In the US the most direct thing we could do (none / 0)

The pessimist in me wants to tell you not to worry: there's a good chance their water will run out before fossil fuels do.

Talk about unsustainable lifestyles...

Actually that is also a problem which could easily be solved while preserving most of the lifestyle of the urban and suburban population. A ridiculous amount of the water used in the West goes towards growing water intensive crops in the desert and semi-desert lands of the southwest. We don't need to grow cotton in Arizona. Beyond that - sure, less pretty green lawns. But there is enough water for the people to have their showers and washers, to say nothing of plenty of drinking water.

by MarekNYC on Sun Jan 7th, 2007 at 10:36:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The water in the Great Plains and American SW (none / 0)

is geological.

It is being mined (pumped), and it is running out, on a timescale of years to decades.

Well, before the white-man, people certainly lived in those regions, using only the available surface water.

It was nothing like suburbia.

Even without the lawns, suburbia uses too much water. If people still want to live there, they will have to arrange something else.

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Sun Jan 7th, 2007 at 02:03:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The water in the Great Plains and American SW (none / 0)

Let's take Arizona which you'd think would be a poster child for your claims. Over two thirds of its water goes towards agriculture, about forty percent of its total water comes from underground sources. I'm not sure what the rate of replenishment is but it is nowhere near what the use is, and much of that groundwater depletion goes towards urban and suburban use. Still, I'm not quite sure why the non-agricultural part is unsustainable considering that at present surface water provides some 150% of total use, and that's with current levels of conservation and efficiency, which I assume we both agree could be improved. Unless you consider having water intensive farms in the desert a core part of the suburban lifestyle...?
Uof A Know Your Water (pdf)

by MarekNYC on Sun Jan 7th, 2007 at 02:49:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Something not quite right (none / 0)

I have been in Arizona, and really it is a desert. There just isn't much water there.

True, every once in a while it rains. Suppose you could catch the run-off, instead of letting it drain away into the Gulf of California.

In India they do this: In some places there is no rain for eight months out of the year. Reservoirs catch the monsoon rains and keep the water available for the rest of the year. However, the monsoon is fairly reliable, as weather goes. It is not really intermittant.

Pumping ground water: If you pump too much surface water you destroy the desert ecosystem through dessication. This strikes me as a bad thing. If you are pumping geological water, well, you get to do that one time, and then it is over.

If people aren't at least gardening, where does their food come from? Shipped in from CA or NJ? That is fine now, but it won't last.

Explain to me what is the local economy? Why are people living there?

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Sun Jan 7th, 2007 at 04:33:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Something not quite right (none / 1)

If you pump too much surface water you destroy the desert ecosystem through dessication. This strikes me as a bad thing.

true. the rest of your comment however is either irrelevant to the fact that your original comment was simply wrong, or a bit strange. You seem to be thinking that some sort of magic barrier will soon be erected around Arizona forcing them to make do with purely locally grown products.

snark aside, peak oil does not mean that we're about to run out of oil, but rather that total production is about to start declining. That means higher prices for oil, and thus for most other things. Same as if you enacted a sharp hike in wages for farm labourers.

by MarekNYC on Sun Jan 7th, 2007 at 07:09:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In the US the most direct thing we could do (none / 0)

Water can't run out. It the worst case, the water you have is in the wrong place and unclean. If so, you pump it and clean it. That's no rocket science and all it requires is energy. Whether you believe in piddle power (aka "renewable") or nuclear power doesn't matter, one of these will provide the necessary energy.

by ustenzel on Sun Jan 7th, 2007 at 12:43:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's all going anyway (4.00 / 2)

0.05% of 7 billion = 35,000,000...ach...maths. Am I part of that 35,000,000? Maybe not. No, surely not. Put me in the top 10% of the richest people on the planet. How did I get so rich? Where did my wealth come from? I like your idea of nations trading products equitably--you have loads of oil, we have loads of pine nuts: let's make a deal!

So seriously: food. How much do you think an equitable daily diet costs and...how many people where you live could afford it? Food is wildly underpriced. To pay real prices for strawberries out of season, or a chicken, etc... I worry that this is going to happen, and the poor (the ones who don't have enough money) will...find they can't afford their food...

Which could lead to rioting...but it'll be the non-agricultural poor who will suffer--the agricutural poor will be earning (via the growing world unionisation project for all I know) decent salaries...

Or, put it another way. If the guys and gals in the most expensive houses where you live, if they can't pay the rent--what do you care? You've got other problems and...they're rich...leave 'em to it. Bastards deserve everything they get...aren't they supposed to be rich? Sell yer fucken houses! etc....

The way I see it, The West, consisting of...say...1 billion people...lives in the posh neighbourhood...only I'd say that in the West there is a minority of poverty--let's say 10%...so we're down to 900,000,000 rich people and 6,100,000,000 poor(er) people who...don't have the same priorities...

But you're right: if the rich can export their lifestyles to the poor and make everyone rich (a sort of upward equality process--but what are the mechanisms for this? How will it happen?)...

So what we see are walls being built...coz the rich know there ain't enough to go round, and they know they've been fucking people over down in the poor neighbourhoods. That guy with the Ferrari? How do you think he makes his money? As a brain surgeon? Yeah, right. Fucking over poor people.

Etc...

The system is unsustainable. You would like a western european democratic type system that is sustainable. Me too! Coz I live in one-ish, and I'm used to it. But, really, I'd like it to be very much different to how it is at present equity-wise, and in particular I don't wish my lifestyle to be on the back of someone else's hard luck...and I don't mean the chinese worker in the factory making plastic toys. I mean all of the processes involved in getting that one worker to earn more than they would have otherwise (=more money = good), I mean the petroleum extraction processes, ach, argh! Ya know, I think we need to start funnelling some serious...resources back the other way, but it seems more likely we'll choose a form of gated community (Mexican border fence etc...)

Ach.

But to the main point: are you happy to get a tad funkier about where your food comes from...and pay the difference to buy local and have every part of the process (and the people) decently treated? Coz in the short term that's where I see the main change taking place. Then we can hope for renewable energy (huge investment! The power shower will stay! Yeah!) And we can hope for 21st Century transport system...which will arrive when those oil producers run out of oil or start charging a realistic price (three times as much?)...

Overall, cities are cool but love the nature in and around 'em! And remember that elsewhere in the world our lifestyle might look less "equal but different" and more "Why's he got it and I haven't?" And the answer isn't hard work, intelligence, come on, the answer is historic...well...okay. But that history is there...etc. argh!

Here's some nature...those come hither eyes...mother nature is so...young...yoiks...she's nubile nature...she's...

Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Sun Jan 7th, 2007 at 06:13:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think (none / 1)

that we practically all agree that the current system is unsustainable and that a main hump is approaching rapidly which will force "us" (as in the privileged west) into a different lifestyle. Which makes rg's questions all the more prudent - what is also a returning theme at this forum: at what level can we preserve the modern lifestyle incorporated by equally fair and sustainable methods?

I favour the approach of smart and sexy solutions with the corporation of certain western commodities and privileges. Clean water, a warm house, a hot shower with the push of a button - why should we not be trying to preserve those at first? Once we fail to do that, perhaps DeAnander's return-to-innocence scenario might play out. But I'm unwilling to move straigh there as long as there is the chance to opt for the first scenario.

Mmm. Well, in so many words, I agree with your main point:

I want to adjust to climate change in a way that preserves as much as possible of that way of life while allowing the rest of the world to reach that level.

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Sat Jan 6th, 2007 at 07:27:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Third Way in Climate Policy | 149 comments (149 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Bidenomics made real

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - October 2024

Of Childless Cat Ladies and other matters...

Lest we forget: How extreme violence and division have been...

Recent Diaries

3rd Day Rutte Next Stop Moscow

1st Day on the Job - Mark Rutte

Harsh Lesson On Humanitarian Law and Israel

Bidenomics made real

Picking Targets in Iran :: CNN, Media Cheerleading

October 2024

Biden Collusion w Netanyahu Leads to Armageddon

Is Southern Lebanon Part of Eretz Yisrael?

Judaism: Tikun Olam for a Better World

IL Not A Democracy, Ruled by Fanatics

UK AstraZeneca Leiden Invasion Act

Israeli Appeasement Under Johnson and Biden

Courage President Kennedy in My Lifetime

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - October 2024

Biden-Blinken Breaking US+Int'l Law Supporting Genocide

Meta: From River to the Sea Not Hate Speech

Resurgence of Europe's Radical Right

Zionism and Political Rightwing Yesilgöz

Zelenskyy: Next Year Victory Will Be Ours

Superpower Terror State

Occasional Series