Sh, adults are talking. Go back to chit-chatting and don’t worry yourself about it.

Sh, adults are talking. Go back to chit-chatting and don’t worry yourself about it. — Mikie

yeah, you dummy. What is your problem: trying to have a reasonable conversation on a philosophy forum. Jeesh...maybe you should find some children if you're trying to have a real philosophical discussion...but not here . . . Isnt that right @Mikie. :grin: :wink: :grin: :wink:

The point was: two coal burning power plants per week. Holy crap. — frank

Yeah, holy crap, it's an unholy mess.

Could it be the case that western economies possess some attribute that can mitigate the potential economic fallout of green policies? — Merkwurdichliebe

No idea, do you have an opinion on that?

Why would China be worried about green policies undercutting their economy? The west doesn’t appear to be worried about it. Could it be the case that western economies possess some attribute that can mitigate the potential economic fallout of green policies? — Merkwurdichliebe

As I said before, the west is stupid if they are not worried about green policies damaging their economy. People in the west usually assume that the west is correct, and that China is wrong. But what if they have it the wrong way around. China is correct and the west is wrong?

The obvious difference between the west and China is that the west is mostly democratic, but China is not. Politicians in the west must convince the public in their country to vote for them. They probably give the interests of their citizens higher priority than what is best for the world. So if the group of people in the country who want green policies is large enough or loud enough then western countries will enact green policies even if they will damage the economy.

The squeaky wheel gets the oil (pun intended). :grin:

They probably give the interests of their citizens higher priority than what is best for the world. So if the group of people in the country who want green polices — Agree-to-Disagree

I feel like there's some deep irony in this. Anybody else notice that?

"What's best for the *world*" could be interpreted as, the health of the planet and global ecosystems, right? And, presumably, green policies are in fact better for that.

"What's best for the *world*" could be interpreted as, the health of the planet and global ecosystems, right? And, presumably, green policies are in fact better for that. — flannel jesus

"What's best for the *world*" can be interpreted in many different ways. For example:
- having a cheap and reliable energy supply
- improving the standard of living for poor and developing countries
- stopping people from breeding like rabbits
- giving everybody a good education
- teaching people that killing 99.9% of bacteria is a bad thing
- stopping child labor which is used to mine cobalt for lithium-ion battery production used for electric vehicles

You said. "presumably, green policies are in fact better for that". Some green policies have negative effects. Many people think that "green" means the same thing as "good". This is not necessarily true. Is it "good" to have higher energy prices (often the result of "going green").

if "world" means the literal planet, then I see how higher energy prices might be good for the literal planet, sure

if "world" means the literal planet, then I see how higher energy prices might be good for the literal planet, sure — flannel jesus

I was using the word "world" to mean both the literal planet AND everything else associated with the planet. Because the world is made up of many parts any policy can have both positive and negative effects. Also whether an effect is good or bad is subjective.

Your statement could be true if "world" meant just the literal planet.

Because the world is made up of many parts any policy can have both positive and negative effects. Also whether an effect is good or bad is subjective. — Agree-to-Disagree

Spoken like a true conservative (in the best sense of the word). But being sluggish to act carries a cost as well. If you wait until the shit hits the fan, then your choices are more limited, and the problem you have to deal with is bigger. ..

No idea, do you have an opinion on that? — Janus

Not really, I just assume the experts have it all figured out and are selflessly working for our best interests.

Not really, I just assume the experts have it all figured out and are selflessly working for our best interests. — Merkwurdichliebe

I just want to thank you for this comment. What with the beef industry giving out grants to California universities, the global oil and gas interests paying for US congressmen, and Monsanto funding the campaigns of local water quality checkers (this is a real thing, btw), it's so good to have an adult voice calling out for acceptance without further discussion of the whatever regarding the whatever.

And also thank god for climate change click bait that makes me more aware of the price of that bubble couch I googled one time.

As I said before, the west is stupid if they are not worried about green policies damaging their economy. — Agree-to-Disagree

Isn't that about 80% of the discussion around climate change policy? Arguing about whether, and how much it will damage the economy, and whether it's worth it?

"What's best for the *world*" can be interpreted in many different ways. For example:
- having a cheap and reliable energy supply
- improving the standard of living for poor and developing countries
- stopping people from breeding like rabbits
- giving everybody a good education
- teaching people that killing 99.9% of bacteria is a bad thing
- stopping child labor which is used to mine cobalt for lithium-ion battery production used for electric vehicles — Agree-to-Disagree

Of course the reality is that most people care much more about themselves and their immediate community than about the net benefit of the policies they support for people in distant lands with a different skin color and a widely different reality.

And this unfortunately means that there is very little actual good faith discussion on the quality of climate change policy. It gets drowned out by the very loud discussion on whether climate change is a globalist conspiracy. And the rest is mostly invented reasons like the poor children mining lithium as a smoke screen for the actual reason: That very few people like to accept painful cuts to their standard of living.

The brutal truth is that the current standard of living of developed countries is not sustainable given current technology.

But you win no elections by pointing that out, so we get a charade of feel-good policies, many of which are either stupid and inefficient or stupid and harmful, because the actual solution - cutting the per-capita energy consumption - is unpopular.

And for that reason as well it hardly matters whether "people breed like rabbits" (although they don't and this comment makes you sound like a racist). Because the people with high birth rates use up so little energy that they're not currently much of a concern from the perspective of climate change.

That very few people like to accept painful cuts to their standard of living. — Echarmion

The real question is when this silly canard gets thrown into the garbage with the other false dichotomies.

I'm not seeing any indication that we're capable to succeed at the almost miraculous task of switching out energy supply in at most a few decades without cuts and economic dislocation.

Certainly the way we've handled the problem so far fails to inspire much confidence.

Well it has to be done. It either will or won’t. I don’t see the point of repeating over and over that this is a hard task.

Yes, we’re all in agreement: it’s very hard. We may not have enough time. We may never have the political will. There may not be the technological breakthroughs we need. And so forth.

Makes people feel special to constantly point this out I guess. This way they can go on believing what “realists” they are, etc. I’m not saying that’s you — but many people I’ve come across are like this. It’s on par with the “both sides are awful” mantra of politics. Yes, generally true — and then what? Lay down and die?

But being sluggish to act carries a cost as well. If you wait until the shit hits the fan, then your choices are more limited, and the problem you have to deal with is bigger. .. — frank

Yes, being sluggish to act carries a cost as well. But it is often different people who pay the price. A person who is old has a different perspective on global-warming/climate-change to somebody who is young.

To put things crudely, using your analogy, old people may be dead when the shit hits the fan. I know that this sounds selfish, but most people are selfish. You can probably blame evolution. :grin:

As I said before, the west is stupid if they are not worried about green policies damaging their economy. — Agree-to-Disagree

↪ChatteringMonkey, nature isn't particularly fair (or unfair) — Sep 6, 2023

... and doesn't care about human economy.

maybe fusion could be like a "magic bullet"? — Sep 6, 2023

It's a collective problem and up to humans to decide whether to do something or not.

And for that reason as well it hardly matters whether "people breed like rabbits" (although they don't and this comment makes you sound like a racist). — Echarmion

The comment is not intended to be racist. I am simply pointing out that the population is likely to grow to over 10 billion and this is likely to make problems worse.

The comment is not intended to be racist. I am simply pointing out that the population is likely to grow to over 10 billion and this is likely to make problems worse. — Agree-to-Disagree

Yeah it's going to make problems worse, but not by as much as a casual scaling up would suggest.

The problem is not numbers, but resource use. A few billion poor people do not emit that much extra carbon dioxide. The real problem is the lifestyle of the rich people which many people who are not yet part of the rich people (i.e. the global middle class) wants to emulate. That is the emissions problem we need to adress.

And that's where it ties in with economic fears and the notion that global competition makes climate change policy undesirable. What we need to do is redefine our economic goals, away from high energy use. Almost noone is even attempting this, and the few that are often come from extreme positions which does not add to their appeal. But energy use is ultimately what it comes down to: We need to have a world where the rich people don't use (as much) more energy than what can be sustained.

Makes people feel special to constantly point this out I guess. This way they can go on believing what “realists” they are, etc. I’m not saying that’s you — but many people I’ve come across are like this. It’s on par with the “both sides are awful” mantra of politics. Yes, generally true — and then what? Lay down and die? — Mikie

What I wanted to point out specifically is that a lot of the debate around climate change (once it is accepted that it's real and it is a problem) just fails to acknowledge the central notions that a) it's about global equity and b) if we're serious about fighting climate change now reducing energy consumption needs to be central.

The kind of massive and rapid change we need would involve a level of public mobilisation that's akin to a war footing. But no-one, including the green parties, even attempts to tackle the problem at that scale.

And most of the discussion about the relative efficacy of different policies also fails to take the scale into account. Like the common argument that "well what's the point if we use less resources, someone else will use them instead". As if we'd not be majorly redisigning the entire global economy while doing it.

As I said before, the west is stupid if they are not worried about green policies damaging their economy. — Agree-to-Disagree

The West is stupid regardless.

It goes deeper than kneecapping the economy and reducing the general standard of living for all but the super wealthy. The west is opening the door for China to become the global hegemon. And it is unlikely that the imperial agenda that China would impose upon the west would be at all concerned with environmental sustainability. We all know China would devour the entire west for the benefit of ccp.

It is a fact that the "climate crisis" is inevitable as long as China does not get on board with the green agenda.

If the west did not have its head up its ass, its strategy would be to pause on the green agenda and exert what imperial power it has left to gain enough leverage so that it could impose a mandatory green policy on China (as well as other major perpetrators). Then once that's done go full throttle on its own greenwork.

If only it were that easy.

I just want to thank you for this comment. . .it's so good to have an adult voice calling out for acceptance without further discussion of the whatever regarding the whatever. — frank

You're very welcome my good sir <removes tophat and bows>.

if we're serious about fighting climate change now reducing energy consumption needs to be central. — Echarmion

Reducing the fossil fuel energy consumption, yes. But most of that can be replaced with greener technology. Electricity, transportation, etc. Agriculture and heavy industry is harder— but our governments can subsidize the transition.

The kind of massive and rapid change we need would involve a level of public mobilisation that's akin to a war footing. — Echarmion

We need more people pushing for these things, yes— especially at the local level of towns and cities.

but our governments can subsidize the transition. — Mikie

Some people believe that the government can spend any amount of money without making anybody worse off. The reality is that the money has to come from somewhere. For example:
- collecting more taxes
- making budget cuts elsewhere
- causing inflation by printing money

There is no such thing as a free lunch — Popular adage

Well nothing that's real is ever for free
And you just have to pay for it sometime — If It Doesn't Come Naturally, Leave It - Al Stewart

Not really, I just assume the experts have it all figured out and are selflessly working for our best interests. — Merkwurdichliebe

Do you really now?

China has not quite finished its industrial revolution. The West is just beginning its green revolution. Just to point out - there is no shortage of energy. The problems of climate change are caused by an excess of energy. There is plenty of available energy, and no need for energy poverty if, instead of bitching about every other region, the supposed world leaders would take the lead in transforming the energy economy. Don't worry, chaps, China will catch up as soon as we have a green technology worth stealing.

For a second I thought this was real:

https://theintercept.com/2023/08/20/global-warming-history-china-hoax/

Goes to show the state of climate discourse.

Just to point out - there is no shortage of energy. — unenlightened

There is a shortage of energy in some locations.

The problems of climate change are caused by an excess of energy. — unenlightened

Excess energy judged by what standard? Better too much energy than too little. Can you ever have too much energy? Can you ever have too much money?

There is plenty of available energy, and no need for energy poverty if, instead of bitching about every other region, the supposed world leaders would take the lead in transforming the energy economy. — unenlightened

There is plenty of available energy if you are willing to use coal, oil, and natural gas. Energy poverty can occur if people can't afford the cost of energy. "Going green" usually increases the real cost of energy to the consumer.

... all of the many current threats to man's survival are traceable to three root causes:

• technological progress
• population increase
• certain errors in the thinking and attitudes of Occidental
culture. Our "values" are wrong.
We believe that all three of these fundamental factors are necessary conditions for the destruction of our world. In other words, we optimistically believe that the correction of any one of them would save us.

Gregory Bateson, Roots of Ecological Crisis. 1970

I'm planning fairly soon on re-reading Steps to an Ecology of Mind and starting a thread if anyone is interested. It may be of interest to know that the politico-socio-psychological aspects of environmentalism have been much discussed since the early 70's and earlier. Obviously some aspects of the text will be out of date, but the methodology and analytical insights should stand up better, and repay careful consideration.

There is a shortage of energy in some locations. — Agree-to-Disagree

judged by what standard? — Agree-to-Disagree

Answer your own stupid questions in reference to your own ignorant pontifications.

The energy of the sun falls upon the earth and is sufficient to the life thereon, to the extent that excess energy has been stored by life-processes over geological time. Judged by the standard of the energy gradient and temperature range needed for life, there is a shortage of energy at the poles. So the fuck what?

I’d be interested, for one. I hope you do so.