Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 Next
Comments 12001 to 12050:
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:44 AM on 21 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
scaddenp,
I have tried to remain consistent.
Any political group, social group, political group or economic system is OK as long as all of its actions are governed by the objective of improving awareness and understanding and applying that knowledge to help develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity (and do no harm to the future of humanity - and do no harm to Others in the current day population).
Capitalism is great as long as it is monitored and governed to ensure that helpful actions are rewarded and unsustainable and harmful actions are quickly discouraged (before they can develop the problematic resistance to correction due to popularity and profitability).
I would also like to see all the parties that want to help improve the future for humanity control what happens. I see the Conservatives in Canada, Australia, the USA and Japan as no longer having any moderate influence inside them (moderate voters ay support them, but there is no moderate progressive influenceon party actions).
So my point remains that unless the moderate progressive Conservatives regain control of those United Right Conservative Parties that deliberately kick out or stifle any Progressive members, those Conservative Parties are not the parties you refer to (the right wing you and I would like to support has no significant power).
And the bottom line of the GND is that it helps the future of humanity with the objective of not causing more harm to any group. Correcting undeserved developed perceptions of status relative to others is not 'harming those who have the undeserved perceptions of status'. And the Unite the Right can be seen to be winning power by gathering up a diversity of groups that have developed (or want to develop) undeserved perceptions of status and resist correction of those perceptions. And that group includes people opposed to actions to correct the perceptions of status obtained by benefiting from the burning of fossil fuels.
So the moderate/progressive Conservatives have to set up new parties or take back control of the Unite the Right consolidated Conservative parties that have developed. And I fully support either action. What I do not support is compromising what is understood to be required by 'negotiation' with political groups that have proven they have little interest in participating in the required corrections.
Bottom line. It is only possible to discuss issues with people who have common objectives. The right have allowed their side to be taken over by a United group of people who do not share the objective of helping to develop a sustainable better future for humanity (some of them may pay lip-service to climate action, but they definitely oppose any other helpful corrections. And their actual support for the required climate action corrections is questionable). Interesting point is that the left extremists include people who are better aligned with that helpful objective than moderate Conservatives who tribally continue to support United Right groups.
-
Marathon at 06:30 AM on 21 February 201997 hours of consensus: caricatures and quotes from 97 scientists
Magma, The three deniers are John Christy, Richard Lindzen, and Roy Spencer.
-
william5331 at 04:44 AM on 21 February 2019Studies shed new light on Antarctica’s future contribution to sea level rise
There is an additional phenomenon that may be relevant with regard to the speed of disintegration of glaciers which are grounded below sea level on a retrograde slope. It is the IP (Ice Pump) phenomenon. Also not to forget the TP (Tidal Pump) effect. https://mtkass.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-ice-pump.html It is likely that they will work synergestically with the MICI.
-
scaddenp at 14:21 PM on 20 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
The Democrats arent helping either with things like GND. They seem just as happy to fight a war of ideologies rather than finding a solution. Stepping back from polarization is difficult and has to begin with talking across the table.
-
nigelj at 11:40 AM on 20 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
Scaddenp, I have had a quick look at your conservative website links and there is quite a lot I would agree with, but the trouble is The GOP and the republican congress and Trump are acting out another script entirely.
There is clearly a massive rift between grass roots conservatives and the hierarchy, but the grass roots are compliant because of the inherent respect for authority. Its a challenge, but I agree its good to try to find common ground with grass roots conservatives, and there is some.
-
nigelj at 11:31 AM on 20 February 2019Studies shed new light on Antarctica’s future contribution to sea level rise
I'm with Riduna on this. Modelling glaciers with computers has limitations and always will have, but past history tells a clear story of similar temperatures to currently and considerable sea level rise.The rate of rise varied and was sometimes more than 40mm plus per year, so more than 1.46 metres / century.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#Past_changes_in_sea_level
-
Riduna at 10:53 AM on 20 February 2019Studies shed new light on Antarctica’s future contribution to sea level rise
A problem facing climate scientists is that they do not know the speed with which the polar ice sheets are likely to respond to environment changes, particularly changes in temperature.
What they can do is look at paleoclimate evidence which shows that mean global temperature is now within a few tenths of a degree of the Eemian maximum, when sea level was 6-9 meters higher than at present.
What they can do is look at ice core evidence which shows that present atmospheric levels of CO2 (407 ppm) and CH4 (1870 ppb) are 40% and 270% above those which prevailed during the Eemian maximum.
They can bear in mind other observed factors such as the effects of soot deposited on the Greenland ice sheet, accelerating loss of ice mass from polar and other glaciers and ongoing rise in energy absorbed by the oceans.
Having done so, can they confidently predict that sea level rise during the 21st century will be measured in centimetres?
-
nigelj at 08:53 AM on 20 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
Scaddenp @26 I must admit the greenie side of the protest movement is not subtle. I admit I'm basically in agreement with you on the whole issue. It is about winning over centre leaning swing voters so it needs subtlety and sensitivity and fundamentally sensible ideas.
I question a couple of your statements because that is what robust discussion should be about, and to avoid a group think mentality.
I have generally progressive values, but I am not an extremist and generally take a moderate, centrist, practical position on things, amply demonstrated I feel. It's tough going, because everyone thinks one is either secretly ultra conservative or secretly ultra liberal. It can be a lonely place sometimes, but I have to go with where the hard evidence and logic leads, not tribal loyalty.
Remember we don't have to win over all people, just the majority and some of the power brokers. Too much compromise can be as disastrous as no compromise.
-
scaddenp at 06:48 AM on 20 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
The problem with UN sustainable goals in the "UN" bit on the front of them. Anything UN is red flag to some. What would work would be nations internalizing these into nation-specific goals without referencing the UN.
-
scaddenp at 06:44 AM on 20 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
OPOF - the far right and far left will do what they always have. What bugs me is the belief that best way to fight a fire is pouring petrol on it.
In any democracy, I am familiar with, changing government or policy depends on the relatively small part of the population who dont vote tribally at least some of the time. These are overwhelming the centre and so influencing such voters is the key to change. In US in particular, you can also affect change by getting some lawmakers to cross the floor. This means policy that doesnt offend their political values.
In US, I think you could get climate policy by working with conservative groups to get policy that say, ticks every box on the ACC platform statement. Then you get conservative groups to promote it.
Instead we get GND...
-
scaddenp at 06:09 AM on 20 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
nigelj
" However it doesn't address the points I raised on the difficulties of framing things in a way that connects with conservatives."
With respect, I think the ACC platform statements provides a clear guide. Lets take local perspective, say issue of dairying. Which approach do you think will work for changing farming practise:
1/ A protest at Field days decrying dirty dairying with signs about farmers destroying the landscape and putting profits before water quality.
2/ Or this. "Tired of being told by town greenies to destroy your livelihood? Sick of people with no knowledge of farming telling you how to manage your land? Farmers have always valued the land and passed its stewardship down through generations. We also value our water (who better?), and our environment (we live in it instead looking at pictures). Come and hear some practical ecologists, with a long history of working with farmers instead of against them, talk about their discoveries and ways in which your deep knowledge of your own land could harness these insights for a better land and better business".
-
nigelj at 05:27 AM on 20 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
scaddenp @21
Thank's for the links and I will read them. However it doesn't address the points I raised on the difficulties of framing things in a way that connects with conservatives. I do think we have to find some way, because the reality of politics means convincing enough conservatives to get enough overall votes.
I'm very much a swing voter. I also support whatever party has the most sensible policies and capable leader at the time. I dont understand life long partisan loyalties, seems ridiculous to me. But apparently people like us are in a minority.
I haven't suggested that a solution to the climate issue is for people to adopt my political values as such. Talking about values is is a different thing from that. Its a science website so I feel nothing should be off the table for analysis.
I do think we are better to stay with promoting specific quantifiable climate policies.
However the UN sustainable development goals do not seem like political values. They seem well constructed and it would seem wrong to compromise them in case it offends "unite the right". There is a danger in compromising so much that nothing of worth is left.
I sense that a significant proportion of grass roots conservatives would probably go along with the sustainable development goals as a philosophy. I would bet money the majority of the general public would support them.
Imho we are in effect being held hostage by a minority of more extreme voices on the right and their political and media influence and brazen and inflammatory rhetoric. But its up to the general public to gain an awareness of this and make their voices heard. It does indeed have to come from the grass roots.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:01 AM on 20 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
Nick Palmer,
"...the engine behind denialism isn't really the fossil fuel corporations anymore but is more the right wing's horror of the solutions put forth as 'essential' by the left wing."
The right-wing you refer to has been taken over by the newly developed United Right I refer to. That new leadership of the Right is the problem needing to be corrected. And that United Right leadership like to try to claim that the understood corrections required to develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity are "The Left", and are ideas of Others to be Feared.
I support the Responsible helpful members of the Right regaining control of their side of the spectrum. I do not see them succeeding without help from the "Left" which can only be obtained by those on the Right acting to helpfully achieve and improve on all, not some, of the Sustainable Development Goals.
The Sustainable Development Goals are blind to political sides. They are the best understanding and are open to improvement by any reasoned case presented by any side. And all siodes should accept the constantly improved understanding (very science like).
Right now the Right substantially incorrectly fights to oppose the achievment of the Sustainable Development Goals (because of loss of undeserved perceptions of status relative to others if the corrections are achieved). That needs to change, preferably by people on the Right regaining control over the dialogue and discourse from their side to be helpful participants in the development of sustainable improvements for the future of humanity.
-
Nick Palmer at 03:36 AM on 20 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
I have to agree with scaddenp. It's not actually absolutely necessary to cure world hunger, inequality etc etc to fix mamade climate change - it would be nice, but it really isn't essential. Unfortunately, anyone who spends any time fighting denialism, particularly the more sopisticated type, soon realises that the engine behind denialism isn't really the fossil fuel corporations anymore but is more the right wing's horror of the solutions put forth as 'essential' by the left wing. I think it fair to say that a significant part of the leadership of some of the large environmental organisations and campignig bodies tends to be very left wing and its arguable that many actually are the 'watermelons' that they are characterised as - green on the outside, red on the inside. Far left individuals masqueranding as environmentalists. There are significant 'climate change personalities' such as Dr Richard Alley, Potholer 54 and Katherine Hayhoe who are right wing, even Republicans but I have sensed a curious reluctance from some climate campaigners, and some in Greenpeace, to even consider their words and 'right wing' solutions as acceptable. It doesn't seem to these 'watermelon' types that solutions which very well might work should be allowed, because they counter far left wing ambitions.
-
sauerj at 03:15 AM on 20 February 2019A Green New Deal must not sabotage climate goals
RedBaron & Others:
1) First off, a point of clarification on my @20: I technically mis-spoke (@20) when saying EICDA would subsidize Carbon Seq (CS) to "farmers and land managers". It does provide a refund to CCS enterprises (that meet “safe, permanent, and in compliance with any applicable local, State, and Federal laws”), but there is no direct language aimed at "farmers and land managers". However, if these agricultural-based CS practices could be shown to meet the above quoted provision, then possibly a refund to "farmers and land managers" (the subsidy RB advocates) would indeed occur. See point 2.9 in this FAQ on the EICDA.
2) EICDA's Rise-in-Fee is tied to Reduction Targets: Also see in 2.1 & 2.2 of this same EICDA FAQ that the carbon fee will continue to rise to meet the emission reduction targets (90% by 2050 along with interim targets that start on 2025). I personally like this provision of contining to increase the fee past $100/mt and tieing its rise-rate to meeting reduction targets. I believe this makes the EICDA even more robust in its effectiveness in reducing GHG emissions. Though faster reductions would be ideal, still, this reduction rate is laudable and superior to any other politically serious policy option that I am aware of (though, I admit, that I am not an expert on the array of serious mitigation policy options on the table). If anyone knows of a more laudable policy option, please provide links.
3) CFD & CT Endorsed by Many Economists: Many noted economists (for example: a) More than 70 Top Economists Back New Carbon Tax Plan, b) Carbon Tax Center list of economists endorsing carbon tax, and c) Nordhaus views on carbon tax) advocate for a revenue-neutral carbon tax as an effective way to reduce GHG emissions.
4) The above two points #2 & #3 seem to disagree with RB's statement above (@46): "Unfortunately [EICDA] won't actually reverse AGW even if passed." when considering that the primary mitigation objective, right now, is to first concentrate on reducing GHG emissions to zero as quickly as possible.
My goal of this additional comment (as this thread is probably winding down) is to 1) post the informative FAQ of the EICDA, and 2) make a good case that the EICDA will in fact be effective in reducing GHG emissions (refer to my points #2 & #3 above). Personally, I believe that these latter two points make a strong case for the efficacy of EICDA compared to any other politically serious policy option.
If anyone would like to join Citizens' Climate Lobby and help to support this awesome organization and the EICDA bill, then please refer to my comment above (@20) for more information and links to CCL and on the EICDA bill (House #763 & Senate #3791). -
One Planet Only Forever at 02:55 AM on 20 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
An added point related to my comment@22.
Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind" should be read in conjunction with "The Opposite of Hate".
The abuse of the ability to tempt people to excuse doing harm to Others as a defence for incorrectly developed tribal desires, and the powerful resistance to being corrected that can also develop, is important for everyone to understand.
Compromising what is understood to be required to 'make everyone happy' is impossible. The case of climate change is a powerful proof of that.
People with developed desires to do things that are understandably harmful to Others (and the future generations are the largest group of Others) need to be disappointed by all Leaders/Winners (having their leading/winning ended if they managed to already become Leaders/Winners). All leaders need to be seen to be trying to correct the understanding of those types of people and be implementing actions that disappoint and penalize them unless they correct their understanding of what is acceptable (being helpful not harmful to Others, no other considerations over-ruling that Rule).
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:07 AM on 20 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
scaddenp,
The Unite the Right groups forming around the world are the incorrect developments I am referring to that need to be corrected. They are groups of people that deliberately exclude Progressive Conservative types of leadership. They play misleading marketing games in the hopes of continuing to get the votes of people who developed a liking for voting for anything sounding like it is "Conservative".
If the right-wing people you follow do not figure out how to regain control of the discourse among the United right-wing, and the proper improvement of awareness and understanding among the group that has been gathering power in Unite the Right groups, then you are likely following an ineffective group of people on the right (people who the Unite the Right leadership will dismiss).
Sadly, many people who have developed a Tribal preference to vote Conservative continue to support Unite the Right groups that have been taken over by leadership of harmful collectives that fight against a diversity of corrections that are required to develop sustainable improvements for the future of humanity. The corrections to fossil fuel burning are only one part of the diversity of required corrections the Unite the Right fight against. And their Right wing winning in many nations (USA, Canada, Australia, Japan, ...) can be seen to be impediments to the climate impact corrections that are required. Even when they do not win, their misleading marketing to the public perverts the actions that the real winners would have taken to more aggressively, more responsibly, correct what had developed (as you say, the opinion among the public is powerful, but it is shaped by the stories leaders try to get people to believe).
Sally Kohn's "The Opposite of Hate" lays out a good presentation of the direction of development the Unite the Right are on and why they succeed. If the reasonable among the Right do not regain control, governing the Right with the Universal Moral Principle of helping to improve the future for Others and do no harm to Others, then external actions (intervention) will be needed to correct what is developing (or massive harm will be done). The same can be said for any groups on the Left that are failing to self-Govern by the Universal Moral Principle. But the mainstream Left are currently remaining in control of the Left, except in regions that suffer negative consequences created by the incorrect Right getting away with unsustainable and harmful actions.
The most benign form of corrective intervention would be non-United Right leaderships acting in ways that disappoint believers of the many incorrect beliefs gathered up in the Unite the Right. If that does not bring about suitable corrections of awareness and understanding, then penalties may be required.
This is no different than how any society learns to deal with and correct unsustainable harmful developments. The tragedy is that global humanity is still struggling to limit the development of harmful unsustainable activity.
The thing to be concerned about is the potential violent response of the people who need to be corrected but have developed a powerful dislike for being corrected.
-
scaddenp at 19:17 PM on 19 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
Actually, have a read of the principles on the ACC site and see how many you agree with and if not could you live with. OPF might be surprised at the possibilities for common ground.
-
scaddenp at 18:53 PM on 19 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
OPOF - global leaders in a democracy are constrained by what their voters will let them do. This has to work grass-roots. I hate to think what you might mean by "intervention".
Nigelj, I have little stomach for reading rabid far right sources (or far left) but I do look for intelligent sites where it is possible to find common ground. (I am not sure my political values are far into the left - I've voted for which ever party seems to have better grasp of current problems). Try American Conservative or Reason. (and search for Green New Deal). I also look over Lucia's Blackboard (used to be lukewarmer hangout).
Loyalty and authority ? Look at American Conservation Coalition (I posted the link before too). Because it speaks to conservative values, it has a much better chance of being listened to. More important is to think about any climate protest action is viewed by the people you are trying to convince, not what give a warm glow to people of your own tribe.
But if your real aim is to try and convince of right wingers to suddenly own your values, then good luck. You will need it.
-
peter prewett at 17:08 PM on 19 February 2019Studies shed new light on Antarctica’s future contribution to sea level rise
SBS ran a program recently on Glaciers and Antartica, does anyone know name and where I can view it.
My recorder failed half way through:((
Peter
-
nigelj at 16:41 PM on 19 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
Regarding the TedTalk by Johan Rockström. This is related: The original world 3 Model on population, resources and growth. You can play with it, just click on Simulate and Settings at the top of the page.
insightmaker.com/insight/1954/The-World3-Model-A-Detailed-World-Forecaster
-
One Planet Only Forever at 16:05 PM on 19 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
scadedenp,
Basically, the right-wing in the USA and many other regions of the planet has developed into Tribalism that is in serious need of correction. Intervention may be required if they will not understand and admit they need correction.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 16:02 PM on 19 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
scaddenp@7,
I refer to the past 30 years of resistance to correction of the unsustainable and harmful developments in the "global developed set of systems that clearly needs correction" in ways that also sustainably improve circustances for the less fortunate because of the clear and blunt statement of the problem presented in the UN Report "Our Common Future" in 1987:
"25. Many present efforts to guard and maintain human progress, to meet human needs, and to realize human ambitions are simply unsustainable - in both the rich and poor nations. They draw too heavily, too quickly, on already overdrawn environmental resource accounts to be affordable far into the future without bankrupting those accounts. They may show profit on the balance sheets of our generation, but our children will inherit the losses. We borrow environmental capital from future generations with no intention or prospect of repaying. They may damn us for our spendthrift ways, but they can never collect on our debt to them. We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.
26. But the results of the present profligacy are rapidly closing the options for future generations. Most of today's decision makers will be dead before the planet feels; the heavier effects of acid precipitation, global warming, ozone depletion, or widespread desertification and species loss. Most of the young voters of today will still be alive. In the Commission's hearings it was the young, those who have the most to lose, who were the harshest critics of the planet's present management."Every leader on the planet has 'no excuse to be unaware of that understanding'.
The continued successful resistance to the corrections that are clearly required (not just in the USA) is undeniable, and inexcusable. Even teenagers who have never heard of the Report understand that.
-
nigelj at 15:50 PM on 19 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
Scaddenp @13 &14
I can imagine what right wing websites say about the Green New Deal, and it won't be pretty. I have a vivid imagination. However these websites do represent the extremists.
With the devils advocates hat still on, I think its more about appealing to moderate Republicans. While they probably hate the social provisions of the GND it's hard to argue with the first few points in the plan because they are general, and they might go with a government financed infrastructure build that is deficit financed in preference to taxes. I think they hate taxes more than deficit financing.
I just dont see how one frames the climate issue in a way related to authority and loyalty. The EPA in America is supposed to be an "authority" and its hated by Republicans. I think they only respect authority if its their kind of authority. Perhaps a moderately authoritarian style of Democrat President would gain their respect? Obama didn't fit that category, he was quite laid back.
I agree its true that if community leaders drive electric cars or use solar panels others will come to copy them particularly among Republicans who value authoritarianism, but I don't see much of that happening yet in Republican communities, and it seems unlikely to happen, because such leaders could be labelled liberal sympathisers. I mean I would like to be wrong obviously.
I think the whole thing is more likely to be driven by economics: Carbon taxes, cheaper electric cars (which are likely within just a few years), cheaper wind energy etcetera. I think The GOP is perhaps sympathetic to this and helping give it a push, but its all been derailed by Donald Trump, and he has them under his thumb. That's authoritarianism for you!
-
BaerbelW at 14:58 PM on 19 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
I recently happened upon a TedTalk by Johan Rockström, the new co-director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research which seems to fit into this discussion - it at least provides some more food for thought:
5 transformational policies for a prosperous and sustainable world
The general thrust is about how to work towards the UN's 17 Sustainability Goals within the Planetary Boundaries.
-
scaddenp at 13:05 PM on 19 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
"I notice Nikki also talks about framing things in moral terms and in reference about harm to others. Is that not what OPOF is doing?"
As OPOF has pointed out though, that speaks well to the left but loyalty and authority are also important to right. For many conservatives, they will only hear the argument if it is coming from someone in their tribe. If protest actions suggest disrespect for authority or breach of loyalty, then they will alienate rather than convince.
On the other hand, if people see that "this is what folks do" (traces), then they will tend to do likewise (whatever your leanings) which could work for you or against it. If running a petrol car causes looks of disdain from within your tribe, then you buy electric. If churches and prominant individuals put solar panels on their buildings then it becomes ok to put them on yours without worrying about "ugly".
-
scaddenp at 12:50 PM on 19 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
" Now playing "devils advocate", its actually The Green New Deal is what is getting peoples attention, despite all the social baggage, imho probably because it's an actual "plan" not just some single tax that's supposed to solve everything."
Spend some time on a few US rightwing blogs and see what is discussed.
-
scaddenp at 12:48 PM on 19 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
jef - I am not disagreeing that systems are unfair and need improvement. I am strongly disagreeing with calls to revolution under guise of climate action. I do not accept that effective actions within the current system (eg tax and dividend) are impossible. I am not much interested in solutions that do not have a political path to fufillment or require human nature to change. I agree that human nature is also social and cooperative - the anti-plastic movement is successfully channelling that at least here in NZ. I believe that similar processes could ( and hopefully will) solve the climate problem.
-
nigelj at 11:56 AM on 19 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
Scaddenp
"Those pushing for climate change action have to figure out how to reach out to other side instead of pushing an ideological barrow. Other countries can manage this."
I agree, but I think America is really stuck in a very bad space and its very hard going there. Obama was a pragmatist to an extent ( and I am pretty much). His considerable ideals transcended the usual liberal / conservative ideological ideals. He reached out many times in a spirit of bipartisan pragmatism, and tried to frame things in ways that conservatives might relate to (as did Bill Clinton a bit) but as one commentator put it each time his hand came back as a bloody stump. America are going to need something pretty special to break this level of tribalism.
I agree about tax and dividend in theory (I've promoted it all over the place) and is seems like the most workable thing in America. It's pretty politically neutral, doesn't increase size of government, but so far it still hasn't got any real traction. Now playing "devils advocate", its actually The Green New Deal is what is getting peoples attention, despite all the social baggage, imho probably because it's an actual "plan" not just some single tax that's supposed to solve everything.
Nikki Harri is interesting. Happiness and positivity = change. Setting good examples and copying other peoples behavious = change. Now doesn't Jacinda Adern understand this so perfectly?
I notice Nikki also talks about framing things in moral terms and in reference about harm to others. Is that not what OPOF is doing?
-
jef12506 at 11:26 AM on 19 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
Scadd - You condemn all of humanity based on the actions of 1% of the population. Human nature is inclined to mutual interest and cooperation, !% who rule disallow this.
-
scaddenp at 10:46 AM on 19 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
A more positive example of change is that around plastic bag use. While government regulations obviously are helping, I hear people using plastic bags in a supermarket apologizing to those around them. There is a social pariah developing about plastic use and our human nature is then working to make to things better. I would heartily plug again Niki Harre "Psychology for a better world" as ways of using human nature to effect change instead of demand that it change.
-
scaddenp at 10:39 AM on 19 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
Nigelj - a "google tax" makes a modest suppliment to our government income without creating any noticable difference to corporates wealth (isnt tax paid overseas deductable anyway) and certainly doesnt change the disproportiate power of wealth. A measure was capable of making that level of structural change (who knows what that would be) would have a major struggle to be enacted.
-
scaddenp at 10:32 AM on 19 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
I would also say that strong scientific consensus was not fully evident till TAR in 2001, but I fully admit that to be opinion since it isnt measured.
-
scaddenp at 10:29 AM on 19 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
The "current system" is what we have got and its not going anywhere. The "current system" is also making significant progress in countries outside the US but the polarized state of US politics is probably the major drag on global progress. Those pushing for climate change action have to figure out how to reach out to other side instead of pushing an ideological barrow. Other countries can manage this.
Actions that result in eliminating FF use will solve the climate problem whether they further impoverish the poor or not. Objecting to effective solutions because they dont fit your ideals for fairness etc is as blind climate change denial. To me, tax and dividend, despite relying on our selfishness and existing systems, is best way to make progress. It looks to be the best chance of reaching across the aisle to get the political capital required. Eg see here. US climate activists need to work with these people, not alienate them.
A vital component of any proposed solution is "politically feasible". Anything else is a waste of time.
-
nigelj at 10:28 AM on 19 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
I don't think it's about getting rid of rich people and capitalism. We have seen enough failed experiments on this. I think its about reducing the undue, disproportionate influence of the mega rich and of corporations. I think that is an achieveable goal but it wont be without a big fight.
Scaddenp, note how google has just been taxed in NZ! See it's not impossible.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:46 AM on 19 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
scaddenp@3,
My simple response, which is also unpopular, is that the past 30 years have proven that the current system is not motivated to fix the problem. And actions to fix it that keep the richer, richer (do not socially coprrect the system) will lead to harmful consequences without actually solving the problem.
-
scaddenp at 08:30 AM on 19 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
Well I am going to post an unpopular opinion. While there have been opinions posted about the need for solutions that are socially just, move away from selfishness, etc (eg https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=4383#130376 ), I am more interested in pragmatic approaches. Yes, it would wonderful to solve climate and a dozen other world problems in ways that are just, sustainable, and apple pie. However, the critical thing is to actually solve them and that means you might need to swallow some rats:
The wealthy have always had unequal power and while revolutions briefly change that, long term that is still probably a given.
To create change in a democracy, you need a majority of your representatives support the change.
Demanding an end to capitalism or eating the rich is not going to get you there. It is just ammunition for those who think AGW is a manufactured leftist conspiracy. GND is alienating people you need to support its substance. Maybe it changes the Overton window and is a pathway to something better, but as it stands, no way.
Human nature is what it is, and I have no faith in “solutions” that depend on changing it. Better to accept what we are and go with solutions that work with human nature (exploiting our aversion to taxes and tendencies to selfishness) and for which you can build broad support among your democratic representatives. -
jef12506 at 07:03 AM on 19 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
All "solutions" proposed such as the GND are focused on how to keep the wealthy, wasteful, 20% of the world who are responsable for more than half the damage, just like it is or even better while the other 80% can fend for themselves and fight over whats left.
This is impacting/killing millions right now. We don't need to wait for future generations.
-
nigelj at 05:44 AM on 19 February 2019A Swedish Teenager's Compelling Plea on Climate
Thinking about climate change and more droughts and consequent food shortages, this is likely to seriously intensify right at the time population climbs to around 8 - 10 billion (if we do nothing to stop this), and when fisheries collapse beyond salvation through extreme over fishing and global debt levels reach absolute crisis point. This will be perfect storm for future generations to contend with.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:33 AM on 19 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
Art Vandelay,
My comment regarding a comparison of Private Health Care and Public Health Care (the real issue), is the essential need for all actions to be governed in a way that results in developing sustainable helpful actions and rapidly identifying and terminating harmful actions (exactly the same principle that applies to climate change and the need to terminate the harmful burning of fossil fuels).
Pursuit of profit and popularity has been conclusively proven to develop unsustainable and harmful activities and powerful resistance to correcting them (climate science being a powerful case proving that point).
Therefore, the only legitimate way to operate any system of pursuit of status based on popularity and profit is rigorous monitoring and enforcement of the principle of requiring people to be helpful, especially the higher status people, and the rapid termination of any harmful actions regardless of their developed regional popularity or temporary profitability (again - refer to the climate science case).
So I am all for Public or Private Health Care as long as the Universal Moral Principle is governing what is going on. Governing Public Health Care systems is also required (some people can be expected to attempt to get higher status in harmful unsustainable ways in any system - just like politics needs to be governed by the Universal Principle, not just allowed to develop however it may develop based on profit and popularity), but it is easier to do that in a Public System than attempting to govern Private Systems, especially systems where private enterprises can claim the public do not have any right to know the details of what the Private Enterprise is actually doing.
There are many concerns regarding dual Health Care systems (with people able to pay for Private Services rather than wait their turn in a Public System) including:
- Richer people will be tempted to push for lower taxes and less funding for Public Health Care because the tax reduction for th richer person is larger than their likely medical expenses.
- Richer people may be able to push for 'better Private medical treatment' than is available in the Public system. Everybody should have comparable quality of care.
The way that parallel Private and Public would work best (and maybe the only way it would really develop a Good Result), is if all treatment is provided by the same group of people and institutions, with a richer person being able to Pay More to jump a wait-list for treatment without causing an unacceptable delay in treatment for the general population. Everyone gets the same treatment in a reasonable time through the Public System, with the impatient richer people paying premiums to get quicker treatment as long as spare capacity exists in the system.
One exception would be unnecessary medical treatments which could be totally unregulated and for-profit. I see little value in expending public effort to limit the potential harm of unnecessary totally elective medical procedures chosen by people simply concerned about 'enhancing their image'. Of course, reconstructive plastic surgery for genetic impairments and accident repair would be in the Public System. And the specialists in those areas could perform such treatments for a premium when helpful treatments are not in high demand. But that talent should not delay any necessary helpful treatments just to 'do an expedited unnecessary treatment'.
-
Art Vandelay at 17:44 PM on 18 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
I think a system of compulsary private health insurance is prefereable from a libertarian perspective, and it should also have the effect of making people more responsible for their own actions, by virtue of a direct financial imposition from higher premiums, or from a glass-half-full perspective, a financial reward for maintaining a healthy lifestyle.
Having personally witness societal transition from private to public health cover I don't think it's a coincidence that people are now less personally responsible and less inclined to take control of their lives and destinies than they were 30 or more years ago.
Ideally we do want a welfare system to operate as a safety net for people who for no fault of their own fall through the cracks, but at the same time we need to foster more positive individual cultures, where people act instinctively in positive ways for themselves as well as those around them.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 15:35 PM on 18 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
Unfortunately yes, we have to protect people against themselves, because once the consequences of their behavior hit, consequences of which they were informed in most cases nowadays, these people don't want to die just yet, and they don't want to suffer too much either. However, given a choice beforehand, these same people would rather not pay for health care, but engage in the risky behaviors anyway. The problem is that everybody has to shoulder the consequences of their beahviors, not just them. And also, we don't tell them when consequences hit that they're flat out of luck, humans are funny that way. So, it is inevitable indeed that society take steps to make the whole thing viable. That includes actively discouraging wrong choices when it is patent that, satistically, too many will make the wrong choices. In Switzerland, health insurance is completely private, but having it is not an option; those who persists in not getting one are assigned one by default, and then have to pay the premiums. That's the only way the system can work, whether we like it or not. People have strange ways of doing risk assessment and risk/benefit analyses; they also have addictive behaviors, from heroin to sugar. I have never heard the ideologues whining about the Nanny state proposing anything fundamentally different that would be workable in reality.
-
Art Vandelay at 10:51 AM on 18 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
KR, I'm not advocating national health care, just pointing out that there are trade off's wrt some individual freedoms, where the government seeks to protect people against themselves through fines and taxes etc. For example, high taxes on cigarettes, taxes on alcohol, and in future there's likely to be a sugar tax, a salt tax, a fat tax etc.
Where I live in Australia we have private and public health systems operating in parallel, so if someone wants a non-essential or non-urgent medical treatment, they must do so via the private system. Also, if you want an urgent medical proceedure to be performed by a surgeon of your own choice you'll need to use the private system.
For a person earning an average salary of $80,000 they will pay a healthcare levy of about $1600 pa and if they choose private insurance too, an extra $2000 - 3000 per year on average.
For a high income earner (>$200k) the levy increases to >$4000, though most high income earners use the private system because the standard is higher.
-
nigelj at 07:10 AM on 18 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #7
A perfect example related to Monbiot's article, from todays news: Britain's richest man quits the UK: Billionaire Brexiteer Sir James Ratcliffe 'relocates to Monaco in a bid to save £4bn in tax'
-
nigelj at 05:49 AM on 18 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #7
George Monbiot gets is so right: "It is true that the people of my generation are not equally to blame. Broadly speaking, ours is a society of altruists governed by psychopaths. We have allowed a tiny number of phenomenally rich people, and the destructive politicians they fund, to trash our life-support systems. While some carry more blame than others, our failure to challenge the oligarchs who are sacking the Earth and to overthrow their illegitimate power, is a collective failure. Together, we have bequeathed you a world that – without drastic and decisive action – may soon become uninhabitable."
Yes, and I think the reason we have done this is partly because are still in the neoliberal "greed is good" economic cycle that started in the 1980's with Reagon and Thatcher, where the rich were seen as saviours and above criticism, and any criticism was branded as envy or "class warfare".
Tax was falsely branded as theft and government business regulations and environmental rules were vilified by business people and think tanks, and they claimed it was for the public good to get rid of these when it was really simply so that they could indulge their personal interests in an unconstrained way at the expense of the public at large. A library full of books has been written on it, including Monbiots own "How did we Get into this Mess" and the books by Joseph Stiglitz an economist.
With neoliberalism some good underlying ideas somehow became twisted into something totally ridiculous that defies commonsense and reason. I honestly think that 90% of the time extremist ideology is the enemy whether of the extreme right or the extreme left. We need a great deal more pragmatism if we are to get out of this mess.
The tide is perhaps turning. The economist.com has just done an article on the attitudes of the millenial generation, and they are questioning neoliberal values, and switching on to environmentalism and equality.
There simply has to be movement at the top of society and in politics. Most people are not going to cut their carbon footprints hugely until they see a lot of people doing this, and until they see movement at the top of society and in politics with a concerted effort to build renewable electricty grids etc.
But what comes first the chicken or the egg? Politicians won't move until they see the public buying electric cars etc. Such a frustrating situation.
-
Sunspot at 01:15 AM on 18 February 2019The Methane 'Time Bomb': How big a concern?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/17/methane-levels-sharp-rise-threaten-paris-climate-agreement
-
Postkey at 18:53 PM on 17 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
“We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN “
-
2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6
Art Vandelay - 'Nanny state' wrt healthcare is a poor assertion. You have the choice of either (a) a government run program where you have the power of a vote and elected representation to correct excesses, or (b) being subject to the commercial whims of assorted insurance companies. Not a single nanny, but rather a raft of them, all rather viciously focused on their profits rather than your wellbeing.
I've been in companies where we lost insurance (had to go to far more expensive vendors) due to one or two employees with 'preexisting conditions', otherwise known as health histories. I see people who for various reasons suffering interruptions in insurance going bankrupt or dying because they cannot afford uninsured medications for heart problems or insulin.
We pay for roads, streetlights, sewage and water services, and (for quite a while now in the US) Social Security as a baseline retirement investment. Health care is entirely reasonable as a social common good. And it would be far cheaper to do that as a single-payer system than the current structure.
[On the point of costs: it's estimated that the proposed US "Medicare-for-all" would cost ~$32T over ten years. Sounds expensive. Until you realize that under the current system we're on track for spending ~$50T over ten years, meaning that a single-payer system would save almost 40%]
-
nigelj at 05:48 AM on 17 February 2019A Duplicitous Minister?
Art Vandelay, I agree the world needs to stop relying on population growth to boost economies and I have said myself we need to get population growth rates down to zero, but immigration is a different thing because it doesn't change global population. Australia seems to be under populated (quick google search), even when you take in to account much of it is not habitable, so the resource pressure isn't there.
I'm not suggesting you open the flood gates to huge numbers of immigrants or refugees, because it's always a balancing act and I feel should be based on people with useful skills. And it's Australias business of course. Imho it just wouldn't be right to manipulate immigration to make climate accounting look good.
-
nigelj at 05:29 AM on 17 February 20192019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
"The lion’s share of the blame must be assigned not to the passengers, however, but rather to the ship’s owners, managers, and captain—along with the shipping industry’s government regulators. In their wanton disregard for risk, the responsible parties are not unlike today’s climate deniers.'
Yes especially as the passengers would have expected sufficient numbers of lifeboats at the very least.
The climate issue could be slightly different because politicans take their lead from opinion polls. Americans are not particularly concerned about climate change. This might partly explain the weak climate policies.
Europeans are much more concerned. And their climate policies are stronger.
Latin Americans are very concerned, but their governments do not have strong policies, but this could be partly explained by their governments being authoritarian and generally ignoring public sentiment.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_opinion_by_country
None of this absolves governments and corporate interests, who are not responding strongly enough even in europe where public concern is generally high. I'm still left with a strong sense politicians are not listening to voters enough in most countries even europe, and its probably due to pressure on politicans from lobby groups, wealthy libertarians and similar people who resent government regulations, and campaign funders.
Prev 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 Next
