Global warming strikes again...

[Farm Boy]

Arguing with the wrongheaded, sometimes incredibly valuable. Speaking with liars, useless.

 

[El_Machinae]

People wanting to be more environmentally friendly on an individual level is important, but it'd be a whole lot better if entry into the market was regulated enough for it to be irrelevant.

So, on a scale of one to ten, how much does this look like an "either/or" statement to you?
I've never denied that we need legal intervention. But no "wanting to be environmentally friendly" does two things if it inspires actual action. First (1) it buys time, because the damage is happening NOW. And (2) it creates the resources required for the transition.

But, given that you're disadvantaged and were still able to contribute more to the solutions that the average liberal, you could be just as disgusted as I am with them. And yet, whenever I mention this, you inevitably post about how it's not their problem.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Arguing with the wrongheaded, sometimes incredibly valuable. Speaking with liars, useless.

Sorry, who is a liar?

I've never denied that we need legal intervention. But no "wanting to be environmentally friendly" does two things if it inspires actual action. First (1) it buys time, because the damage is happening NOW. And (2) it creates the resources required for the transition.

Good luck convincing big-business democrats and the entirety of the GOP

 

[El_Machinae]

You're going to have a hard time doing ANY of those with capitalism and the way we control and limit our resources. Our politicians refuse, our people refuse, the companies will never do it willingly without either massive pressure or government force, so the latter is out and the former requires concerted effort by a majority of society.

As far as I can tell, we're agreeing.

Yes, I have a very hard time. See my original comment on the topic. I'm disgusted with nearly everyone.

We need the 'massive pressure' and 'government force' to create the systemic changes. And that requires more buy-in from allies that are currently only pretending to be concerned.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

As far as I can tell, we're agreeing.

Yes, I have a very hard time. See my original comment on the topic. I'm disgusted with nearly everyone.

We need the 'massive pressure' and 'government force' to create the systemic changes. And that requires more buy-in from allies that are currently only pretending to be concerned.

Neither of which will occur, because too many people are in a precarious position enough as it is to risk changing the status quo, too many rely on the same companies and products that result in the destruction of our planet.

No amount of protests or civil disobediance matters as long as the politicians in power defer to those with money and that isn't a bug in the system El_Mac, that's a feature.

As long as money and profit continues to be of paramount importance, everything else, our survival, the humanity of others, will take a back seat.

 

[El_Machinae]

Neither of which will occur, because too many people are in a precarious position enough as it is to risk changing the status quo.

Naw, you're talking as if the game is lost. Sure, it might be, but it's not guaranteed.

But every single liberal better-off than me is in a less precarious position than me. So, if I can find the ability to contribute to the actual solution while buying time, I can be irritated at my faux-allies who can't be bothered. Syn pointed out that they were able to help.

And yeah, I'd appreciate it if other people stopped spreading the memes that we cannot do more. Especially not those in cohorts comparable to their own.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Naw, you're talking as if the game is lost. Sure, it might be, but it's not guaranteed.

But every single liberal better-off than me is in a less precarious position than me. So, if I can find the ability to contribute to the actual solution while buying time, I can be irritated at my faux-allies who can't be bothered. Syn pointed out that they were able to help.

And yeah, I'd appreciate it if other people stopped spreading the memes that we cannot do more. Especially not those in cohorts comparable to their own.

I'm not arguing nothing can be done, I'm arguing that as long as we uphold Capitalism, this problem will continue. We can ameliorate the symptoms, but if we keep going down this path we're only delaying the inevitable. We're in a really dangerous spot here, we need change and the people in power who can affect the solutions are those already invested in the status quo. It's why we need to get rid of the GOP and the business wing of the Democratic party; neither of those factions will ever truly be on board and will always do everything they can to slow down and frustate efforts, their continued existence and prosperity hinges on the status quo.

 

[El_Machinae]

As I said, as far as I can tell, we're agreeing. Or at least enough that we're allies. We agree on the fundamental problem. We agree on the systemic problem. We agree on the direction of the solutions.

The difference might be that I think it's worth reducing the damage that we do and liberate personal resources in order to speed the changes that are required. Part of that is to stop forgiving each other for doing the opposite when it's just an excuse for selfish behaviour.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

As I said, as far as I can tell, we're agreeing. Or at least enough that we're allies. We agree on the fundamental problem. We agree on the systemic problem. We agree on the direction of the solutions.

The difference might be that I think it's worth reducing the damage that we do and liberate personal resources in order to speed the changes that are required. Part of that is to stop forgiving each other for doing the opposite when it's just an excuse for selfish behaviour.

I get that, reducing any damage is well worth doing but i fear at this point it is akin to scooping water out of a sinking ship with a bucket; it might buy us more time but at the end of the daying we're still sinking without drastic action adn that action isn't coming anytime soon

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, that's step 2 in what I was proposing.

But 'reducing damage' isn't just 'buying time'. It's refusing to hurt those vastly weaker than you any more than necessary. Again, than necessary. We live in a world where it's impossible to not harm others once you trace the feedback effects. But they're worse if we're callous or selfish.

The hamburger purchase actually causes harm* to someone weaker than me. Sure, someone else will cause the same harm if I forgo it. But (a) that's their fault, not mine and (b) the damage they're going to cause is exponentially worsened by the damage that I did first.

*It's also empowering the lobby that's trying to slow progress.

 

[Hrothbern]

Governments and companies are always slow to change the status quo unless it is in their direct interests.
And the same for people.
Why risk what you have in your hands or within reach with a big change ?

The problem of those listed arguments is that it is a "catch all" and delivers the overall impression of a distant future Utopia.
=> A lot of people will hook off immediately, and many more see no urgency

It is also about the situation-people "in general" and aimed at "everybody"
and that means it does not likely concern anybody in particular, and does not aim at anybody in particular.
=> For a lot of people: "huh... did you mean me ?" "to do what ?" "what for ?"

The most cynical Law of Change I know is that a decision to change only happens if not deciding is a decision of a similar impact.
Nobody accountable wants to risk his "status quo" (his job or whatever) with a premature decision for nothing.
It is like voting with a choice between two parties, and you choose the one that is least bad, instead of being able to vote for a party on moreover positive arguments.
Deciding on positive arguments for change is often replaced by deciding for the least bad change.

 

[luiz]

Do you guys really believe that the world is about to end, or civilization collapse, or any such nonsense because of global warming?

I don't see us becoming carbon neutral anywhere before 2070 or so. The world will get a couple degrees warmer by 2100 compared to pré-industrial levels in all likelihood. But we will adapt and prosper... We keep getting richer year after year, food production breaks records year after year, life expectancy is rising, child mortality falling. And everyone in the rich world seems obsessed about these Doomsday prophecies that never materialize.

When did the Club of Rome say we should start collapsing? 2007, no? Well.

 

[El_Machinae]

No, I think there will be a cohort of people more poor than they need to be because of the externalities from our fossil carbon consumption. And that someone is either responsible to either offset those harms or not cause them in the first place.

It's like ... a billion people or so ... so it's important.

The growth in food production is currently dependent upon the overuse of nonrenewables, extinctions are speeding up, global fish stocks are increasingly overexploited, aquifer levels are dropping and the threat of salted aquifers is rising.

To say "there's nothing to worry about" would mean that we should worry more. Even if the problems are solvable, they still require intervention. Insisting that 'things are fine' make it harder to get ahead of the ball.

But no, it's the deliberate actions causing accidental harm towards others that's the problem.

Additionally, the risk of the damage tripping into a true crisis is not negligible. There's a very serious risk that the scenario "everyone is worse off than they needed to be" happens.

 

[luiz]

No, I think there will be a cohort of people more poor than they need to be because of the externalities from our fossil carbon consumption. And that someone is either responsible to either offset those harms or not cause them in the first place.

It's like ... a billion people or so ... so it's important.

The growth in food production is currently dependent upon the overuse of nonrenewables, extinctions are speeding up, global fish stocks are increasingly overexploited, aquifer levels are dropping and the threat of salted aquifers is rising.

To say "there's nothing to worry about" would mean that we should worry more. Even if the problems are solvable, they still require intervention. Insisting that 'things are fine' make it harder to get ahead of the ball.

But no, it's the deliberate actions causing accidental harm towards others that's the problem.

Additionally, the risk of the damage tripping into a true crisis is not negligible. There's a very serious risk that the scenario "everyone is worse off than they needed to be" happens.

Well so far the percentage of people below the poverty line keeps falling. The percentage of people without food security keeps falling. Child mortality keeps falling. And indeed the rate of progress accelerated in the last decades. The global poor are getting richer much faster than the global rich.

We must be doing something right. We must be using the available resources with at least some wisdom, or we would not have achieved such impressive results. Enough with the doom and gloom! We've never been better off.

I do believe we should invest in clean energy, we should invest in reforestation, etc. It's better to be safe than sorry and transitioning away from fossil fuels will ultimately be good for most people. But there is no "climate emergency". There is no "threat to human life on earth" or "civilizational crisis". I get really upset when I see scientists throw around such nonsense.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, there are many macro trends to be pleased about. But this doesn't justify any marginal piece of damage. Like, "we're beating polio, so it's okay for me to roll coal" doesn't make sense, right? Every piece of marginal damage has to be justified with regards to how its adding to this trendline you're talking about. It's impossible to figure out if the decrease infant mortality is 'worth' the rise in schizophenia. I mean, these are ratios that just don't compare easily. But it's creating a good by creating a harm elsewhere ... a harm that people would not willingly self-inflict to cause the benefit.

But "doing something right" when a huge component of the benefit is from harvesting non-renewables is a bit like bragging about your business acumen by selling your grandparents' antiques. "We're increasingly dependent on fossil fuels to avoid global starvation" isn't really brag-worthy. You cannot brag until that trendline reverses.

There's no climate emergency yet. But there's a trendline. And the odds of us screwing everything up completely, through environmental damage, are not minuscule.

It's funny, talking to a fiscal conservative who thinks that running long-term deficits isn't sustainable, but thinks that reducing levels of secure fish stock is sustainable.

There's a line that people talk about, where we talk about "the percentage of people being hungry is falling". It's a framing issue, and one that doesn't impress me. I think the more important metric is "total number of hungry people". Now, we can argue about which metric is more important, but we both agree that improvements along both metrics are superior to improvements merely along one metric.

 

[luiz]

Yes, there are many macro trends to be pleased about. But this doesn't justify any marginal piece of damage. Like, "we're beating polio, so it's okay for me to roll coal" doesn't make sense, right? Every piece of marginal damage has to be justified with regards to how its adding to this trendline you're talking about. It's impossible to figure out if the decrease infant mortality is 'worth' the rise in schizophenia. I mean, these are ratios that just don't compare easily. But it's creating a good by creating a harm elsewhere ... a harm that people would not willingly self-inflict to cause the benefit.

But "doing something right" when a huge component of the benefit is from harvesting non-renewables is a bit like bragging about your business acumen by selling your grandparents' antiques. "We're increasingly dependent on fossil fuels to avoid global starvation" isn't really brag-worthy. You cannot brag until that trendline reverses.

There's no climate emergency yet. But there's a trendline. And the odds of us screwing everything up completely, through environmental damage, are not minuscule.

It's funny, talking to a fiscal conservative who thinks that running long-term deficits isn't sustainable, but thinks that reducing levels of secure fish stock is sustainable.

There's a line that people talk about, where we talk about "the percentage of people being hungry is falling". It's a framing issue, and one that doesn't impress me. I think the more important metric is "total number of hungry people". Now, we can argue about which metric is more important, but we both agree that improvements along both metrics are superior to improvements merely along one metric.

Yes. Indeed birth control in Sub-Saharan Africa, along with investment in basic education for women there (which drastically reduces teenage birthrate) would be great investments with a higher ROI than "tackling the climate emergency".

I also think that other, more traditional environmental policies such as taking care of fish stocks or getting rid of diesel cars should take precedence over this fight to save the planet from a fictitious apocalypse caused by a slight warming.

And I don't blame the Greta Thunbergs of the world or CFC posters for freaking out. They're just teenagers, and the media and a lot of scientists are telling them to freak out, that the world will end if we don't solve the climate issue in 18 months or whatever (the deadlines keep changing as we never really reach them). I blame these latter two.

 

[El_Machinae]

Thanks Bjorn.

But we're not asking for people to limit their "helping sub-Saharan Africa budget". That's a strawman of every single concern expressed. I've mentioned hamburgers. I've mentioned rolling coal.

Why is it always expressed that way? First off, "helping them" comes from the 'charity' budget. Offsetting your externalities comes from your consumption budget. The ability to wean needs to be priced into the consumption. It's the over-consumption that's the problem. Only failed heuristics think that climate should be tackled from the malaria budget rather than the vacation budget.

Nearly no one would mind if people offset their carbon with donations to oceanic science or for malaria nets. As you say, the rate of return could easily be higher. But first, you properly fund the offset of the damages or you don't cause the damage in the first place. Sure, spend it wisely. But it needs to be spent. Rolling coal doesn't help. Your far away vacation doesn't help. And refusing to fund the solutions proportionate to your destruction doesn't help.


In fact, I'd appreciate if you'd not misrepresent the concerns. Do you really think that the screaming is to "solve the problem in 18 months?". No. That's stupid, and you should be steelmanning rather than strawmanning. When your parachute instructor says that you have 12 seconds to pull the chute, he is neither saying that you will die within 13 seconds or that pulling your chute in 13 seconds is pointless. And he for damned sure didn't say 1.2 seconds when he actually said 12.

Climate deniers: they think that pollution should be free. That it's okay to take from those weaker than themselves, for their own benefit, and the weak should thank them for the opportunity.

I daresay that you don't have a model of negative externalities.
I also know that you cannot predict a 1000 ppm world. Especially one with an unpredictably stressed ecosystem.


You're bragging before the finish line. Feeding people is a success once we're weaning off of damaging non-renewables and diminishing eco-system reserves. Before then, we're feeding people so that we can figure out how to wean from needing to destroy in order to succeed.

You speak as if offsetting carbon is something that done out of a sense of charity. No. It's preventing a damage that you're doing.

 

[luiz]

Thanks Bjorn.

But we're not asking for people to limit their "helping sub-Saharan Africa budget". That's a strawman of every single concern expressed. I've mentioned hamburgers. I've mentioned rolling coal.

Why is it always expressed that way? First off, "helping them" comes from the 'charity' budget. Offsetting your externalities comes from your consumption budget. The ability to wean needs to be priced into the consumption. It's the over-consumption that's the problem. Only failed heuristics think that climate should be tackled from the malaria budget rather than the vacation budget.

Nearly no one would mind if people offset their carbon with donations to oceanic science or for malaria nets. As you say, the rate of return could easily be higher. But first, you properly fund the offset of the damages or you don't cause the damage in the first place. Sure, spend it wisely. But it needs to be spent. Rolling coal doesn't help. Your far away vacation doesn't help. And refusing to fund the solutions proportionate to your destruction doesn't help.


In fact, I'd appreciate if you'd not misrepresent the concerns. Do you really think that the screaming is to "solve the problem in 18 months?". No. That's stupid, and you should be steelmanning rather than strawmanning. When your parachute instructor says that you have 12 seconds to pull the chute, he is neither saying that you will die within 13 seconds or that pulling your chute in 13 seconds is pointless. And he for damned sure didn't say 1.2 seconds when he actually said 12.

Climate deniers: they think that pollution should be free. That it's okay to take from those weaker than themselves, for their own benefit, and the weak should thank them for the opportunity.

I daresay that you don't have a model of negative externalities.
I also know that you cannot predict a 1000 ppm world. Especially one with an unpredictably stressed ecosystem.


You're bragging before the finish line. Feeding people is a success once we're weaning off of damaging non-renewables and diminishing eco-system reserves. Before then, we're feeding people so that we can figure out how to wean from needing to destroy in order to succeed.

You speak as if offsetting carbon is something that done out of a sense of charity. No. It's preventing a damage that you're doing.

Where is the damage though? The huge, unprecedented increase in well-being of the world's poor was largely driven by the industrialization of China and India, which in turn greatly increased the price of commodities and thus boosted growth in Africa and poor Asia. And guess what drove the industrialization of China and India? Western "overconsumption"! This is what took hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. This is what made the two most populous countries on Earth escape the deep, shameful misery they were stuck in just a few decades ago to quickly move towards middle class status.

Those far away vacations in Thailand or Cambodia were essential to spur development there. They are essentially a direct transfer of capital from the rich world to the poor world. And they had a very tangible, very measurable impact on the well-being of millions of people!

What is not really measurable is the damage of climate change. The Himalayas should have melted by now, the arctic should have ice free summers, half the world coastal towns should be submerged..
And yet, they aren't.

No, the things you want to shame and stop have actually driven a the biggest poverty relief success story in the history of the human race.

You're not impressed by my arguments, I'm not impressed at yours. I'm certainly not impressed by moronic deadlines that keep getting extended and catastrophes that keep not happening.

I am impressed though at the hundreds of millions if not billions of people that were lifted out of poverty in China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, etc. I am impressed by the fastest economic growth on earth taking place in some Sub-Saharan countries and by the unprecedented growth of life expectancy there. I'm not wiling to jeopardize that because Greta Thunberg is yelling and waving her fists on TV.

 

[El_Machinae]

Okay, if I took a dump on your yard every day and pointed out that you got a raise from work, you'd not be impressed. If I then pointed out that your dead grass means nothing because my poop makes great potato fertilizer, you'd not be impressed. Me damaging your property is independent of your ability to afford the damage I cause or your ability to 'benefit' from making changes to incorporate the damages I cause.

You're continuing to strawman the various concerns. Which means, of course, that you being 'unimpressed' with my position means very little. You've attended the wrong headlines, despite pretending to care about the issue for most of your adult life. That's your problem, not mine.

But yeah, all of the true risks are further out. It's an exponential trendline. Everyone knows that. You just pretend that we don't.

Sea level rise will damage shorelines and aquifers. Shifting climates will speed extinctions. Oh sure, you're going to suggest that 'they' can afford the repairs out of the aggregate growth. See my first sentence.

But ... I just noticed something. Your position is that 'overconsumption is what lead to growth'.

This won't happen in real time, but this should cause dissonance in you. First off, if your model is that 'overconsumption is what causes growth', you're just ... well ... wrong. Overconsumption tells us how the growth will actualize. It's not what causes it. I cannot unpack this for you in any type of real time. But, again, I'm suggesting that we fund the transition out of the overconsumption budget. Not the 'polio vaccine' budget or whatever forced-choice you want to create.

But the second part is that this vaunted 'overconsumption' is heavily from non-recoverable assets. We will never regain the ability to put CO2 into our atmosphere as safely as we do today. Again, you're announcing victory before the victory is had. Tomorrow's emissions are more risky than today's emissions. And, you're the one implicitly advocating vacations rather than polio vaccines, not I. Your also advocating that the rich seize more than their share of the remaining buffer, and the poor should thank them for it.

Brag about food stability when we're not increasingly dependent on fossil fuels for food. Or when fish stocks are stabilizing instead of being increasingly risked. Or when aquifers have stopped dropping. You're bragging about selling your grandparents' antiques.

 

[luiz]

Okay, if I took a dump on your yard every day and pointed out that you got a raise from work, you'd not be impressed. If I then pointed out that your dead grass means nothing because my poop makes great potato fertilizer, you'd not be impressed. Me damaging your property is independent of your ability to afford the damage I cause or your ability to 'benefit' from making changes to incorporate the damages I cause.

You're continuing to strawman the various concerns. Which means, of course, that you being 'unimpressed' with my position means very little. You've attended the wrong headlines, despite pretending to care about the issue for most of your adult life. That's your problem, not mine.

But yeah, all of the true risks are further out. It's an exponential trendline. Everyone knows that. You just pretend that we don't.

Sea level rise will damage shorelines and aquifers. Shifting climates will speed extinctions. Oh sure, you're going to suggest that 'they' can afford the repairs out of the aggregate growth. See my first sentence.

But ... I just noticed something. Your position is that 'overconsumption is what lead to growth'.

This won't happen in real time, but this should cause dissonance in you. First off, if your model is that 'overconsumption is what causes growth', you're just ... well ... wrong. Overconsumption tells us how the growth will actualize. It's not what causes it. I cannot unpack this for you in any type of real time. But, again, I'm suggesting that we fund the transition out of the overconsumption budget. Not the 'polio vaccine' budget or whatever forced-choice you want to create.

But the second part is that this vaunted 'overconsumption' is heavily from non-recoverable assets. We will never regain the ability to put CO2 into our atmosphere as safely as we do today. Again, you're announcing victory before the victory is had. Tomorrow's emissions are more risky than today's emissions. And, you're the one implicitly advocating vacations rather than polio vaccines, not I. Your also advocating that the rich seize more than their share of the remaining buffer, and the poor should thank them for it.

Brag about food stability when we're not increasingly dependent on fossil fuels for food. Or when fish stocks are stabilizing instead of being increasingly risked. Or when aquifers have stopped dropping. You're bragging about selling your grandparents' antiques.

There's a reason why I put overconsumtpion between quote marks. It's hard to define what is over and what isn't. But there's no doubt it was large scale western consumption that financed industrialization in Asia, thus lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty. This is a hard fact.

You keep talking as if it's me benefiting, as if it's me taking a dump at someone's garden. But the key beneficiaries were the poor of China, India, Vietnam, and increasingly Africa.

We're talking of the biggest success story in the history of our race, and you talk of dumps in gardens.