What Makes Inevitable Environmental Collapse, Or, "Why I Hate Earth Day"

[Wolf]

It's been a while since we had a topic of note here--and it's been a while since we had one with such a strong relationship to the powerful themes of the original Dune novels. I speak of course, of climate change, or what I'd like to refer to as environmental collapse, and proffer this piece from the blogosphere for a conversation starter.

Ultimately, given the statistics she quotes, it's pretty clear that in addition to our population and economic activity, our environmentally-unfriendly activities have increased nearly geometrically since the first Earth Day in the 1970s--when environmentalists were already predicting eventual environmental collapse in the mid-21st century. Given that we are now in the second decade of that century, and given the impending economic booms of the so-called "Global South," I think they may have had a better point than even they originally thought. Ultimately, it's clear that nothing short of absolutely-life rearranging/revolutionary changes within the next decade will be sufficient to prevent some level of widespread environmental collapse around the globe. Literally, the lives of millions hang in the balance in a way that hasn't been seen since WWII--and I think the author is correct in repeatedly invoking that historical narrative.

My only question regarding this issue is, to quote Vladimir Lenin (you're welcome, Edric): Что делать? What is to be done? Given that 20 members of a radical Islamist forum managed to shut down a South Park episode this week, it's apparent that the threat of violence is sometimes successful in compelling human behavior, but I don't think ecoterrorism is a valid or morally correct option--nor do I think the leaders of national governments and boardmembers of multinational corporations are pussies in the same way that Comedy Central might be. But given that humans are historically unwilling to make radical lifestyle changes unless it is the only obvious option--or an option they are forced to choose--I'm at a loss for good solutions to this problem. I don't think even changes from within the law will be sufficient to avert some level of catastrophe--since the law, ultimately, is a product of legislatures and therefore a product of popular will. Some might say that legal and political alternatives are sabotaged from the beginning. Anyway, enough yapping from me--some of you are smart people, I'm curious to hear what you have to say.

EDIT: If you'd like a less alarming article, I'd recommend Bill Nye, but I will be the first to admit that there is almost never any substantial value coming from anything posted on CNN.

[Dragoon Knight]

There are a few harsh truths regarding global warming (or environmental collapse or whatever you might want to call it) that people need to realise.

1. It's happening now.

The climate is changing, and it's our fault.  If you doubt this, pretend that there was a huge debate about it, where you were eventually backed into a corner and told by everyone that you were wrong.  Bonus points if you actually accept this.

2. The consequences are undetermined.

Personally, I'm sick and tired of all the stories and predictions portending doom.  They vary far too much for me to take them seriously.  Only a 100% reduction in emissions by 2012 will save us!  All the continents will stop absorbing enough CO2 and Greenland will melt!  When do the Four Horsemen arrive?  Will they have any dry land left to ride across, I wonder?  Seriously, Science, take your time - come up with some realistic, believeable and consistent predictions and then we can all start running around flailing our hands.

3. It can't be stopped.

Anyone who thinks that the world is going to up and change its ways even nearly enough is one capacitor short of a motherboard.  For one thing, it's not going to happen now, so no-one really cares.  The world will literally have to be either on fire or under water before progress stops.  Even then, the bits that aren't aflame or submerged will keep going at it, probably even more so.  Humans don't take well to going backwards, and all the money being wasted on trying to do so - including this carbon footprint nonsense, which is basically playing swapsies and making no damned difference whatsoever - could be better spent towards our only real hope if things do go tits-up.

4. Technology in renewables might still save us.

That's right - progress.  Things like hydrogen fuel cells, for example.  If and when it gets adopted, it will be either through necessity (i.e. oil no longer available in vast quantities) or frugality (i.e. it becomes cheaper than petrol / diesel).  If we can just keep driving forward, looking for cleaner ways to keep doing what we're doing, then perhaps we'll come out of this with nothing but skinned knees.  And by that, I mean that we might not all die a horrible, fiery / watery death.  Only some of us.

5. People need to stop being pricks.

Alternative energy is the answer then.  Cleaner ways of doing things.  Like windfarms, offshore or otherwise.  But wait, we can't do that, it'll spoil the landscape and/or the horizon!  My precious vieeeeeeeeew....  I'd like to see these people harp on about their damned pristine countryside when global warming really starts to bare its teeth.  Millions of people have to evacuate coastal towns and cities, but hey, at least this patch of uninhabited land isn't besmirched by those dreadful white eyesores.

Nuclear power is dangerous!  The LHC will make a black hole and kill us all!  Damming rivers for hydro-electric power will ruin the scenery!  Wave power, solar power, all of it will spoil everything!  As soon as this sort of crap stops, or at least dies down so that it can't be heard over the construction of wind turbines, we'll be on the way to a solution.

Sorry, this reply was more of a rant than a decent expression of my views.  But the points are valid; there's nothing that can be done to stop the change.  It's only when it happens that things will start to be done, and even then it'll be renewables / technological advances that will save the day.  If there's even a day left to save.

[Sneakgab]

Naturally, the first step is to ensure a system that allows any control in the first place.

There is surely room for disagreement, but it is arguable whether there is any real control by ANYONE under capitalism. The rich and powerful are often referred to as the ruling class, but in order to remain rich and powerful (as opposed to being consumed by competitors), they must strictly follow the most profitable course of action. Therefore, in that sense, they don't truly have any options (so long as they wish to maintain their wealth and power). They are in fact, ruled by the profit motive.

History seems to have proved this (at least that profit is always held above all else by the rich and powerful, regardless of whether they have real control). How many times have you heard about companies lobbying for setting lower pollution allowances? For one reason or another, companies always hold profit as their sole interest at the expense of all else.

Of course, nobody else has any real power either. Governments, for whatever reason, seem to have proven themselves incapable of acting in any way other than promoting profit and/or the maintenance of their power,wealth,e.t.c (thinking of modern governments at least) . Of course, a different climate may change things.

So, first we must establish a system that allows people whose sole concern is not the further enrichment of the rich to yield control.

Another possibility is making ''green'' production and whatnot the most profitable option. This would be dependent on science and technology, so the only way to actively work towards this would be by conducting the work or investing in it.

Other than that the only realistic option for bringing about better treatment of the planet seems to be Marxism or at least direct democracy.

Wolf, you make out as though no one is willing to pay anything for the planet's health, but people are definitely capable of making short term sacrifices for the greater good, it happens everyday. Given control, they will choose health, education, services, and the environment; they have no reason not to. Even the tiny autocratic economically sanctioned island that is Cuba can provide most of the first three, surely a Marxist Earth could provide the fourth.

No one in their right mind will choose environmental catastrophe for a few luxuries. They would only choose that if it was required for the bare necessities of survival.

Of course, if you believe that Marxism cannot even supply man with basic necessities, then things are different.

(edit)

Yes, Dragoonknight is probably right that some heavy damage is guaranteed regardless of any action taken now.

(edit2)

Lol, are people really opposing alternative energy because it would ruin their view!?

[chatfsh]

A few days ago, as I sat in a well-appointed conference room watching my fellow corporate bankers gleefully discuss how much untapped potential there was in the affluent market and how much profit there was yet to be made in this lucrative field, I was astounded.  Astounded at how unfazed they were by the economic plight that the rest of the world was facing and at how these men only seemed to prosper in the drought-like conditions. There were big bonuses to be plucked from the tree of opportunity if only they had the drive and desire to attain them.  Were they lying or deceiving themselves, getting drunk off their own delusions?  Absolutely not.  The numbers don

[Wolf]

Sneakgab:

Wolf, you make out as though no one is willing to pay anything for the planet's health, but people are definitely capable of making short term sacrifices for the greater good, it happens everyday. Given control, they will choose health, education, services, and the environment; they have no reason not to. Even the tiny autocratic economically sanctioned island that is Cuba can provide most of the first three, surely a Marxist Earth could provide the fourth.

Sneak: it's not that I think "no one is willing," it's that I think that no one is capable: meaning that, you may be willing to switch out your lightbulbs and buy only recycled paper, but even that is insufficient to avert what is inevitably a global storm. "Short term sacrifices" are not enough: they never have been, and they never will be, and nothing short of an absolutely revolutionary change in lifestyle will be sufficient to affect climate change from the perspective of consumer habits. Cuba is capable of doing what it does because of highly specific geopolitical conditions that make it possible: not because "Marxism" is an adequate answer. The solution to climate change--I think--is as much a technical question as it is a political one.

[Dante]

"The solution to climate change," tee hee hee.

I would argue that the primary barrier in the way of reform is ignorance. Always has been. Not only in the sense of "Nothing's happening, we're all fine, LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" but also the kind mentioned in the article whereby people are convinced that doing a little (or others doing so) will be enough. Icemelt will see recycled plastic bags, change its mind and retreat back to Greenland with a sort of shoooop noise. And of course the kind that denies climate change is occuring at all. It's this kind of wooly thinking that gets in the way of progress. As long as people continue to believe that climate change is just one agenda among many, and possibly not the most important one, it won't be given the attention it deserves.

The article references big changes, and it's big changes that are needed. Such as? Well, the biggest thing at the moment would be not flying. You can live almost completely carbon-neutral for ten years and then emit the equivalent with one international flight. Arguably another would be not driving, but there are actually cars around that run on, for example, ethanol. Or even batteries. They haven't been adopted because the internal combustion engine is still more cost-effective, but prototypes are out there. The electrical ones would be silly at this point though, as they need recharging quite regularly.

Lets see, what else... Well, ensuring that your home is properly insulated and powered from renewable sources. There's a whole community near where I live that's got itself hooked up to a quadrangle of windmills. Ideally you could also just not buy plastics. Like, anything. Ever. No plastic food wrapping, no plastic pens or bags, no plastic bottles, no plastic. Full stop. Not only is plastic difficult to recycle (most types and in most places), it's also harmful when made and harmful when destroyed. And think of all that waste out there, all the landfills and the dramatically named Trash Vortex. Mostly plastic.

The majority of people would be willing to make "short term sacrifices," but short term isn't what's needed. Some might have to move house, others find a new business, yet more could find themselves contemplating existence without plastic. The thing is, governments can't tell people to do that, people have to want to do that. And they don't. Far easier to be stupid.

Finally, do you really want to save the environment? Never have children. Seriously, a child will grow up to use a lifetime's worth of pollutants, as will their children and their children and their children... There's a growing environmental movement to just stop having children. This handily solves the overpopulation crisis as well. It's not very popular though. Wonder why. It should appeal to the "you can do a little" mindset, since by not having any children you're effectively removing several generations of polluting and could therefore possibly justify a little leeway in your own.

Of course the dark side of that is that you can be environmentally friendly by killing children but, amusing as that is, best not go there.

[Dragoon Knight]

Lol, are people really opposing alternative energy because it would ruin their view!?

Oh hell yes.  Examples: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

And that's just for wind farms, though those are the most popular target for "ruining views".  And despite any delusions to the contrary, if people like this keep protesting loudly enough and in large enough numbers, there's no government or business - regardless of how rich they are - that will get to build them.

[Sneakgab]

But it is but a small group of retards no?

Millions have marched and not even managed to slow down big business. If they wanted windmills, they would get windmills (unless tens of millions of people launched a grand windmill revolution...:D. Unless a mass psychotic episode occurs, I don't think millions of people are going to raise arms against their view being obstructed ). Of course, the problem is that windmills aren't likely to be terribly profitable.

''So the lack of action or reformation is not due to some silly people not wanting their views obstructed.''

So, in other words, Hwi is right on this note. It's not about angry old farmer men who won't tolerate windmills in nowheresville. It's that their is no money in it (or, that the investors don't think there is, at least).

Speaking of which...  :O

I was quite surprised hearing that from Hwi*. Simple observation of business practice seems sufficient to state that businesses are solely interested in profit beyond reasonable doubt, but it's interesting to hear it from someone who's actually been in those big board meetings.

Commendable honesty, considering it does nothing for your ideology's popularity.

* Other than for the above reason, getting rich tends to introduce a little bias in these things (no offense intended).

(edit)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

''Of course the dark side of that is that you can be environmentally friendly by killing children but, amusing as that is, best not go there. ''

Well, with that kind of ''solution'', why stop there. Let's create a dystopia where litterbugs are killed on sight. :D

''but also the kind mentioned in the article whereby people are convinced that doing a little (or others doing so) will be enough. Icemelt will see recycled plastic bags, change its mind and retreat back to Greenland with a sort of shoooop noise. ''

Not that I read the article, but yes this kind of thing is spread around. Why? Because big business would prefer that Joey and Sam clean up their acts than they spend 1 cent doing the doing, and Joey and Sam can't do very much, so all we hear about is ''little things''.

Let's get serious here, random people aren't going to magically bring about alternative energy and electric cars. The only ones that can do this are the rich, who have the wealth required to do so. The only thing that people can do is encourage such vehicles through their purchases (take note this doesn't work for everything. Eg: Windmills... Unless some windmill power company is set up or companies start offering differently generated kinds of power for purchase or something)

Asking random working people to sacrifice even more so big business can continue being filthy is not the right way to go about. If we go down this street, then why not do the same for everything?

Global food crisis? Right, put down that second ham sandwich Joe, it's going to be donated to Africa.

Global energy crisis. Right, time to start riding a bike and more TV, Joe.

Sure, people can ''solve'' their problems by sacrificing some of their living standards (in some cases not really. A third of the population of the world is below the poverty line. I don't really see what they can do to reduce pollution).

We may be able to solve THIS issue with some low cost changes, but in any case it's time that human society was no longer arranged around ensuring George Soros' monthly diamond car at the expense of everyone else.

With the enormous technology and production potential of man, we could easily cut down production to save the environment AND provide a decent life for all.

Remember that global food crisis example? Their are no REAL global food crises. It's bullshit. Their is more than enough food for the entire population of the world to receive decent nourishment. The problem is that the fore-mentioned third of the population doesn't have any money to buy it. The solution isn't for the working class to eat less or whatever nonsense the media is spouting. Not sure if that would even help (bigger stockpile of food and less demand MIGHT mean the companies would be willing to let it go more cheaply or something.)

The solution is to expropriate and unload those massive food stores (along with doing other things) so that that third of the population can live more decently instead of living on the b*rink of starvation, lower than rats.*

The solution here is to heavily fund alternative energy research and generation by expropriating the huge wealth that exists and by not giving a damn about the oil and power companies (who in any case, should have been expropriated).

The interests of the rich are in direct contradiction to the interests of everybody else.

*Yes, in general there has obviously been a lot of oversimplification in this post, but you get the general idea.

[athanasios]

...

Well spoken sister.

A few thoughts:

CO2 footprint is garbage. Melting of ice due to global warming is a myth.

The rich and powerful want to continue controlling the earth. Despite what morons say, there is enough oil, natural gas and coal to cover our needs for many centuries. Not to mention nuclear fuel which will last for millenniums. They do not want to let this happen, as the power can pass to the countries that possess the resources.

They talk about green energy. What is really GREEN is the profits they will make from it.

"Do not make children, which will grow and challenge our position. Kill them (like in WW I & II) and plunder..."

BTW, I hate wind turbines -they are very ugly.

[Dante]

Fascinating. Why is it that you bigot types are always a few cats short of a cradle? I'll ignore the bulk of your stupidity, for the sake of my blood pressure if nothing else, and simply ask what is melting the ice, if not global warming? A man with a hairdryer, perhaps?

[athanasios]

Quite possible. Did it ever come into your brilliant mind that it could be a natural process?

http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/climate-change-is-natural-100-reasons-why/

- I take Coversyl for my blood pressure, I suggest you do the same. :P

[Dante]

So when you say that global warming is a myth, what you mean is that global warming is a fact and that you disagree with the anthropogenic aspect of same.

Do try to state your argument more clearly, it makes it ever so much easier to tear it to pieces.

[Edric O]

What I really don't understand is why climate change deniers think that natural climate change is somehow less of a threat than man-made climate change. It isn't.

When glaciers melt, that's bad news for everyone living on a coastline, no matter why the glaciers happen to be melting.

[Dragoon Knight]

Ah, athanasios.  Rather than justify your quoted source with a detailed point-by-point rebuttal (from either myself or another, quoted source), I will instead pick some of those points apart to expose the irrelevance, repetition, circular logic and general lies within.  A summary of fail, if you will.

1: Yes, there is.  For further reference, this also implies that there is evidence supporting the "natural" theory.

13: Irrelevant - nothing to do with why climate change is supposedly "natural".

14: Same as 13.

17: Repetition of point 1.

18: Repetition of point 12.

21: Repetition of point 12.

25: Repetition of point 1.

27: Repetition of point 23.

35: "On two occasions I have been asked,

[chatfsh]

What I really don't understand is why climate change deniers think that natural climate change is somehow less of a threat than man-made climate change. It isn't.

When glaciers melt, that's bad news for everyone living on a coastline, no matter why the glaciers happen to be melting.

True, the consequences will be bad regardless of who or what caused the climate change.  But it

[SandChigger]

Oh, why worry? Sweet Jayzus is going to sweep down and Rupture all the good Xians and bugger everyone else. There's eventually going to be a New Heaven and a New Earth, so why worry about ruining this one?

[athanasios]

Do try to state your argument more clearly, it makes it ever so much easier to tear it to pieces.

My error. I thought that it would be understood that I was referring to anthropogenic global warming. But you will fail on the latter! ;D

What I really don't understand is why climate change deniers think that natural climate change is somehow less of a threat than man-made climate change. It isn't.

When glaciers melt, that's bad news for everyone living on a coastline, no matter why the glaciers happen to be melting.

Did I state the opposite? I agree with you Sir. But a natural procedure means a lot for the way we have to view and cope the consequences.

...

I must disagree to your comments.

13: People are sceptic and they have valid reasons to be.

14: We should seek better ways if we want to produce energy.

35: Figures can be manipulated and false theories constructed. Don't tell me you never did that in the university laboratories-We all did.

38: ? You missed the point: We do not want to pay attention to catastrophe prophets, whoever they may be.

42: You got that one.

49: It IS relevant, not for the cause, but for our pockets!

50: Please no more about Wind Farms and their subsidies. We have a major scandal here in Greece with politicians bribed and foreign companies playing the 'game' mafia style.

51: ...

52:

54: Your logic is amazing here!  ::)

55: Yep, I agree with you, this is stupid.

56: Politics mean a lot.

58: No proof, but shows the folly of the way we took to prevent the consequences.

59: ...

60: Politics mean a lot.

61: (38) ? You missed the point: We do not want to pay attention to catastrophe prophets, whoever they may be.

62: ... (58)

68: See points 52 and 54.

70: VERY RELEVANT!

... Similar thoughts.

79: both article and you are wrong. Yes we cannot reverse it, unless we a genius finds a solution, but there are other things we must prioritize.

82: Politics and OUR MONEY MATTER!

87: Efficiency matters.

89: We should not demonize CO2.

93: Failure of method.

94: Failure of method.

95: Irrelevant. I agree.

96: Not so irrelevant. A lot of hypocrisy.

97: Others will do the same.

Yes there are many errors and repetitions there.

Still, the point is clear, regardless if there are 1000 or only 10 reasons:

... it

[Andrew]

What I really don't understand is why climate change deniers think that natural climate change is somehow less of a threat than man-made climate change. It isn't.

When glaciers melt, that's bad news for everyone living on a coastline, no matter why the glaciers happen to be melting.

The reason is because assuming natural causes, then why spend $$ to go green instead of rapidly increasing industry? If natural, then going green won't help any.

Global warming is too politicized. But I am in favour of reducing pollution. Not zomg CO2 output and create trade credits etc, but spending $$$ on recycling, and making more efficient products (anything that uses electricity, try to make more power efficient, vehicles that use gas, make more efficient etc).

Basically making the most of the resources we have instead of just digging up more from the ground to use because it is easier.

[Dragoon Knight]

Alright, athanasios, you want to play a game of details?  Buckle up, because this retort is over 23,000 characters long.  I'm splitting it more or less in half, so apologies in advance for the double-post.

The title of your blessed article is "CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY".  It then goes on to further explain the meaning of this title by saying "HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made" (bold emphasis mine).  Now, pay close attention - the author is saying that the 100 reasons he lists will be directly related to the title, i.e. each "reason" will be a statement for natural warming, or against man-made warming.  Anything else is irrelevant, because it will not be a reason.  Please tell me you understand this, because I can speak in one-syllable words if need be.

Now, on to some more detailed criticisms this time.  You did ask for this, remember.

Point 13

Article Says: Peter Lilley MP said last month that

[Dragoon Knight]

Points 70 - 78

Article Says: 70: Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote:

[Wolf]

"The solution to climate change," tee hee hee.

...

The majority of people would be willing to make "short term sacrifices," but short term isn't what's needed. Some might have to move house, others find a new business, yet more could find themselves contemplating existence without plastic. The thing is, governments can't tell people to do that, people have to want to do that. And they don't. Far easier to be stupid.

Perhaps I didn't make myself as clear as I originally thought. But before I get into the substantive material, I'm just curious as to what you meant by "tee hee hee." I didn't think I was being funny. Nor do I think it's a funny issue. You might be giggling at the audacity inherent in such a statement (the "solution" to any big problem), but, I meant those words at their most basic level: it is a problem. We need a solution. A minor issue, but still.

As for that other paragraph... that's basically my point. People will be willing to make short-term sacrifices on a very small scale short of lifestyle changes... but none of that matters. They might as well not do it. What I think is actually valuable, and what I think you also recognize, is that people have to want to act in a certain way in order to stimulate actual, positive change. This translates into what I've essentially been saying all along: that the solution to climate change is to make positive environmental activity profitable. People will do anything for a profit: if the government offers to pay to destroy cedar tress, then people will plant cedar merely for the sake of destroying them to make money. That may strike you as ridiculous, but there are hundreds of real-life examples of exactly that. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is down the hall. Ultimately, what we need to do--I think--is to stimulate a green industrial revolution, where things like clean energy, resource-reclamation, and conservation are profitable industries that individuals want to invest in. For far too long have environmental issues wallowed in the short-sighted rhetoric of "sacrifice" when they should have been focused on what caused climate change in the first place: what's the fastest way to make a buck?

[SandChigger]

I wouldn't like to mention the author of the next post. Please be more constructive and on topic next time, instead of throwing your poison on Jesus. You don't help the discussion and you piss us off.

Mmm... tastes like bug score.

I celebrated Earth Day by being doubly wasteful. It was ... delicious.

Collapse mid-century, huh? I only hope I live long enough to see Shiva dancing across the world. :)

[Sneakgab]

*Dragoon Knight posts refutation of 100 stupid points*

And so, Dragoon Knight's dirty little secret was revealed to the world: Masochism.

Wolf: Make green profitable.

Nothing new. However, relying on legislation is useless:

''On January 24th, the US Supreme Court, by a 5-4 decision, ruled to remove the remaining spending limits on corporate involvement in elections.''

I don't think I need to say much more on that. Modifying the state may help (things like reversing the above decision for example), but in the end, power corrupts.

So then there is the issue of technology. Well, saying let's make ''green'' the most profitable via technology is in essence saying and doing nothing (not an active solution), unless you are personally pushing forward such technology.

Almost all enterprise is in private hands, and this includes research. Even where researchers are not directly employed by companies, they still rely on their funding (even when they rely on government funding, with the government as it is...).

So obviously companies need to get interested in investing into ''green''. We all know that under capitalism, the most profitable option is chosen by the companies (or at least what they think is the most profitable option).

So if we can agree on that, then clearly the fact that ''green'' tech is not heavily invested in or used says something about it's profitability.

To change things, we must change profitability (don't see how you'll do that), increase investment (only if your a billionaire) or change the nature of rule.

(Of course things can change by themselves, I'm speaking about active change)

The lattermost can be done to any extent between minor (legislation to reduce corporate influence on government) and major (direct democracy) and the effects vary accordingly.

If the population moves for minor changes, they must keep moving or defend their changes indefinitely, for the ruling class does not sit idly but also moves for changes that benefit it.

[Dante]

I wouldn't like to mention the author of the next post. Please be more constructive and on topic next time, instead of throwing your poison on Jesus. You don't help the discussion and you piss us off.

Welcome to the internet. Revealing your weakness was a mistake. Your invisible sky wizard will not save you.

Perhaps I didn't make myself as clear as I originally thought. But before I get into the substantive material, I'm just curious as to what you meant by "tee hee hee." I didn't think I was being funny. Nor do I think it's a funny issue. You might be giggling at the audacity inherent in such a statement (the "solution" to any big problem), but, I meant those words at their most basic level: it is a problem. We need a solution. A minor issue, but still.

It's more than from anyone else's lips (fingers?) that would have been an endorsement of the old-fashioned view that climate change was simply a matter of cause and effect. And the idea that someone could stand up, say in the UN, and say "I have the solution!" and everything would be fixed by teatime with the help of

. Essentially I was remembering the optimistic notion that everything could be "fixed" and made to go back to the way it used to be and, rather darkly, mocking it.

As for that other paragraph... that's basically my point. People will be willing to make short-term sacrifices on a very small scale short of lifestyle changes... but none of that matters. They might as well not do it. What I think is actually valuable, and what I think you also recognize, is that people have to want to act in a certain way in order to stimulate actual, positive change. This translates into what I've essentially been saying all along: that the solution to climate change is to make positive environmental activity profitable. People will do anything for a profit: if the government offers to pay to destroy cedar tress, then people will plant cedar merely for the sake of destroying them to make money. That may strike you as ridiculous, but there are hundreds of real-life examples of exactly that. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is down the hall. Ultimately, what we need to do--I think--is to stimulate a green industrial revolution, where things like clean energy, resource-reclamation, and conservation are profitable industries that individuals want to invest in. For far too long have environmental issues wallowed in the short-sighted rhetoric of "sacrifice" when they should have been focused on what caused climate change in the first place: what's the fastest way to make a buck?

Yes, I was mostly talking to Sneakgab when I said that. I've said before, perhaps someone on this forum, that the way to make people go green is to make it the profitable option. And if that means making all of the alternatives prohibitively expensive then so be it...

I'm so very glad that Dragoon saved me the trouble of going through all of those points. I was dreading having to repeat myself that much. I suppose I should really follow his example and spell out my objections in the UK Election thread. *Sigh* I just really hate explaining things to people who can't follow the bloody obvious. Ah well.

[Wolf]

It's more than from anyone else's lips (fingers?) that would have been an endorsement of the old-fashioned view that climate change was simply a matter of cause and effect. And the idea that someone could stand up, say in the UN, and say "I have the solution!" and everything would be fixed by teatime with the help of Captain Planet. Essentially I was remembering the optimistic notion that everything could be "fixed" and made to go back to the way it used to be and, rather darkly, mocking it.

Yeah, I pretty much figured that's what you meant, and I hate to be churlish about it, but regardless of the complexity or causality of the issue, there is nonetheless much to be "resolved." Perhaps I, too, fall into the happy hippy-dippy category of "save the world" greenies--which sucks. Or, maybe I ought to have re-emphasized the question, the problematic emphasis being "we can save the world," not "we can save the world." You mentioned the U.N.: I am not counting on them to be a competent or responsible body regarding climate change. I'm also at a loss to think of anyone who would be. Finding out who that "we" is would be really helpful, you know?

And regarding those 100 points... I didn't read the actual article, but I have to say that I'm awfully impressed with Dragoon's... brutally single-minded approach. I haven't seen that kind of dedication on PRP since Hwi was talking to God in the first person.