Books actually, but close enough. Pretty much reminded of some of my richer Southern high school friend’s moms. Big hair, ex-sorority, home econ major, charm school etc. etc. , but you know… now making policy that impacts all Americans…
1 Like
The days when the US can just dictate trade terms are long gone. I would wager I know a great deal more about global economics than you do. If you are so adamant that the US can dictate such terms then please explain to me why we allow protectorates of ours to operate outside of US labor laws? If we can’t get our protectorates to abide by our labor laws then how do you recommend we get other nations to do so? If we can’t get them to abide by something as simple as giving their workers weekend off or not forcing them to have abortions, then how do you propose we get them to purposely slow their economy down by reducing carbon emissions?
Again, America is important in the global economic picture. It isn’t nearly as important as you think it is.
I’m not on the side of the religious fanatics. I firmly believe the science of climate change and think that we are on a bad path. That doesn’t change my hypothesis that if the US is the first actor they are most likely to be in a worse position than if they do not act at all.
In scenario one we act first and nobody follows us. The effects of climate change are still felt globally but our nation has purposely slowed its economy ahead of time.
In scenario two we do not act. The effects of climate change are felt globally but our nation has not purposely slowed its economy.
If given those two options I regretfully pick scenario two.
There is a third scenario which you folks are suggesting in which we are the first to act and everyone follows our lead, but by my calculations the chance of that being a success is 10% at best and those who make decisions in our country have done similar calculations and come to similar answers hence the reason for inaction. Unfortunately.
4 Likes
You are starting to think along the right lines, unfortunately none of those organizations have the level of authority of the ability to direct policy to the extent to actually make something like a global response to climate change happen.
They exist, they just don’t have teeth.
I’ve seen some pretty self serving uses of Occam’s razor but I think thats a new winner. What does Occams Razor say about the Government being completely buried in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry?
I think it says something like * “Oooooh, look at me! I’m the fossil fuel industry! What’s that jingling in my pocket? There’s something next to my keys, just under my wallet… oh yes, that’s the United States congress. How are you guys? Cosy in there? Good. Good. You relax. Everything’s going to be alright.”*
2 Likes
Excellent point. There is no doubt some influence from the fossil fuel industry. I suppose if we are throwing out Occam’s Razor a rhetorical device then we are left with me have a bit of faith in human self interest and intelligence and you writing our nation’s decisions on global warming off as nothing more than base greed.
As a general rule if you think they you have the one right and logical solution to the world’s problems and the world somehow isn’t following your solution then you are either wrong, or don’t understand the scope of the problem.
To put it in other words, if something seems irrational then you don’t know or understand all the facts.
Yes, yes, this is a point of view isolated to the Chardonnay socialists at Boing Boing and the US lack of action on climate change is due to its government’s consistently rational approach to foreign policy. I’m pretty sure you are just driving trollies now. Have a nice day.
4 Likes
When your argument runs out of steam accuse of trolling. It may not be a popular sentiment on the internet, where everyone is a self anointed expert, but yes, the US policy on climate change does have real roots in rational self interest and a greater benefit in inaction vs action. Too often those who push action on climate change ignore the fact that one country acting unilaterally is at risk of negatively impacting its economy and still experiencing the negative effects of global warming. Even the US acting unilaterally isn’t in a great position to effect global change on this issue.
I still see beach houses on the beaches. When those wash away and the Potomac creeps up the Capitol steps, then we might see meaningful action. Until that time, it’s smoke, mirrors, hand-waving and tiny effort.
I’m not acting… THEY are. Sure, some people have “donated” but they haven’t really done anything. Not like Kennedy announcing we’re going to the damn moon, and 8 years later BOOM, Neil is standing on the friggin moon.
My original point remains: it’s all personal. It’s not personal enough, yet. But, rest assured, it will be when their beach houses fall into the sea. Then it’ll be man vs. nature personal.
3 Likes
Because we’re dysfunctional, and haven’t actually tried? Because a significant fraction of our elected official want to dismantle the entire edifice of government, including basic labor protections? Because a substantial fraction of U.S. residents don’t see anyone else in the world as deserving of the freedoms and protections they take for granted?
What makes you think reducing carbon emissions would slow economic growth? An individual trying to cut his emissions incurs significant cost, but on a society-wide basis you can get pretty far while saving money on balance.
5 Likes
Perhaps you are right. We are just now seeing some of the negative consequences of global climate change. We are also starting to see it affect the wealthy in their pocket books. I am one of those folks affected. The Senate just voted to delay rate hikes for flood insurance for homes in flood zones. Those of us in coastal flood zones are now waiting to see if the House passes it. As these sorts of things gain momentum we may see a more concerted push by those with money to move things along for purely selfish reasons. We aren’t there yet.
A significant portion of our energy produces carbon emissions as a byproduct. Reducing said emissions would almost certainly result in a short to intermediate term reduction in economic output. Whether or not it would result in a long term reduction is a matter of more speculation.
OK, you have articulated your position quite well. Now I’m looking forward to your solution. Mine is to see that voters grasp the situation and put pressure on elected officials in the US to take significant action. We can’t call it unilateral action, since the US lags so far behind some other counties’ responses. The US response has been irresponsibly slow, which I blame on the Republican antiscience culture coupled with the Republican obstruction of all of the President’s legislative goals.
1 Like
Not every problem in the real world has a realistic solution.
If I had my way the US along with every other country would reduce carbon emissions to the point that the planets natural carbon cycle can begin to reduce the damage we have done.
This isn’t a world in which I get to dictate global policy though.
In this world there is no way voters will make climate change an important enough issue to put pressure on elected officials until it is too late. In this world the US making any changes will at best slow climate change, not stop it unless other countries act, and their incentives are too strongly arrayed against action.
Just because an individual or a group of individuals realizes a problem doesn’t mean there is a solution. Not in the real world. Unfortunately some problems don’t have realistic solutions no matter how badly we want them too.
1 Like
I suspect that armies of secret Canadians are responsible for spreading all the global warming FUD… Who has the most to gain from uncontrolled warming? Canadians! It is part of their dream to give Hudson Bay a Mediterranean climate and to drown the Newfies.
Some people just want to watch the world melt.
4 Likes
Kinda tired of people calling the erratic weather patterns of the last decade a ‘natural planetary cycle’. The Earth is Billions of years old. Billions. Planetary cycles don’t last for decades, they last for tens of Thousands of years. An ice age is a natural planetary cycle. Technically we’re still in the last ice age that began three million years ago. Currently we live in an interglacial period that began 11,000 years ago. Starting to see my point? When we’re speaking in terms of natural planetary cycles we’re talking about periods of time that exceed the existence of humanity. Recorded history only goes back 6000 years, we’re in a planetary cycle that started 11000 years ago.
So why be a global warming denier? Is it because you think environmentally-minded people are whack jobs that’d stomp a puppy before they’d cut down a tree? Are you just trying to disassociate yourself from tree hugging hippies? Are you just trying to sleep better at night by having one less thing to worry about? Are you that determined to shift self responsibility? Do you just like to argue? Even if it’s at the expense of not only your children, but your species? Honestly, what purpose does it serve? What are you trying to accomplish? I would genuinely like to know the logic behind your denials.
Splitting hairs aside here, can’t we all just admit that pumping our planet full of toxins is a bad thing regardless of what terminology we apply to it or the severity in which we believe it’s adversely affecting this ball of rock we’re all standing on? We don’t have to hands across America this thing to do something about it. If you don’t believe in global warming can you admit that the atmosphere could use a good spit shine and stop arguing against the people willing to grab a bucket and a squeegee so they can go to work on the clean up. If you aren’t going to help with the work, would you at least kindly get the fuck out of the way?
5 Likes
Why do you assume changing our path to cut back on emissions creating climate change equals “purposely slowing our economy”?
I see a lot of potential for new industries, new technologies, new processes…forward movement, not slowed down at all.
4 Likes
Someone else has already asked this…
I believe that is a fairly logical response. If I have missed something please elaborate. There may be a Nobel Prize in it for you if you can come up with a way to cut greenhouse gas emissions without slowing an economy.
1 Like
China has recently leapfrogged the USA in clean energy production by no small margin. Their advances in solar and other alternative energies have made big strides forwards. While they are still the world’s worst polluter, they are also now the worlds leader in renewable energy, and are investing heavily in moving in that direction.
This was Bill’s point, while the USA sits around due to conservatives refusing to act other countries are moving forward much more quickly, even countries like china have made massive directional shifts, while the US has done almost nothing.
2 Likes
