Debt Rattle Feb 24 2014: What Drives The Climate Debate Off Track

[Raúl Ilargi Meijer]

G. G. Bain “New York: Aviator Clifford B. Harmon seated in aeroplane” July 1910 The climate debate has gone completely off track over the past few yea
[See the full post at: Debt Rattle Feb 24 2014: What Drives The Climate Debate Off Track]

[Ken Barrows]

I’d state it like this if you think climate change is a potential extinction event:

We have to cut emissions by 90% (80%). It means you lose your job? Tough. It’s permaculture or die!

[SteveB]

<blockquote cite=”This would need to be done globally, with a much fairer distribution of available resources than we have now. If one large country refuses to cooperate with such a plan, it’s basically impossible to implement. It would mean bankrupting most of the world’s richest corporations and even nations, no trifle matter. It’s plain to see that, and why, there would be a lot of resistance to this. There is also no global body that has the power to even start discussing such a plan.

We might want to wonder if the human mind is capable of not only imagining, but actually implementing, this (as we might want to wonder if the human mind is capable of long term planning in general). And while wondering that, it seems indispensable that the real picture gets out there of what halting the changes in the climate would mean in practical terms: a completely different world. If those who feel climate is the number one issue today would start explaining that different world, instead of staying trapped in a regurgitating and bottomless argument exercise with those who are going to keep saying “no” regardless of what is said, that would at least greatly improve the level of conversation.”>

There’s no need to implement anything nor for long-term planning. Nor do we need a global body to initiate change. What it would take is something along the lines of the following process:

1. Acknowledge that ending the global use of money and the concept of exchange is our best and perhaps only hope of preventing the destruction of our life support system (among a multitude of other and contributory maladies).

2. Help one another to understand that a sufficient portion of global society’s positive aspects could continue in the absence of money and exchange.

3. Choose a date certain at which to end the ‘game’. Not a deadline, but a lifeline. I’ve proposed October 15, 2014. (If we’re not ready by then, we can aim for a year later.)

4. Prepare mentally and emotionally for the change and communicate with one another about it. Maintaining relationships and establishing new ones would be paramount.

5. As of the lifeline date, live—like every other species—without the stress and perverse incentive system of the money game.

Note that the process doesn’t include reaching a consensus, convincing anyone of anything, or requesting permission from those in power. No addition, just a subtraction. When the “No it’s not” crowd says “You can’t do that!”, we’ll just say “We can and we are.” A critical mass would be unstoppable (by definition).

[Greenpa]

Thanks for the Monty Python. One more illustration of my contention that they are, along with a few other “humorists”, actually the great philosophers of our time.

It’s been obvious for a long time that “climate denial” is driven nearly 100% by pure, short term profit considerations. Corporations with operations in place make the simple calculation- change operations, losing $X billions, or pay “deniers” to generate astroturf and pay lobbyists to stop legislation- at a cost of $0.001X. Simple equation.

Ilargi; don’t know if you’ve ever read this old essay of mine; but I think you’re in the right place to enjoy it: https://littlebloginthebigwoods.blogspot.com/2007/08/pants-on-fire-part-1.html And do read part 2, it’s right adjacent. Would love to hear your comments.

[Professorlocknload]

Gonna have to leave the climate adjusting to whomever is the Star of the Second coming, if there is one. (of either)

I can say, though, when the Great Equalizers in Central .gov finally lose it, and can no longer subsidize energy and resource waste like they are so prolific at, a lot of folks are going to be moving South and West.

Might even be some people riding bikes again and cutting back their auto use, to say 3 or 4 thousand miles a year, on the one and only vehicle they will own. Some of us cut our energy use back by 60-80% and found we could retire on the savings.

It all started with this simple book, good to see it still in print.

I mean, really, how much ya gotta have?

As I said, when the Mighty Leviathan finally loses it, billions of market players will reset it, sans a scorched earth action on the part of the rulers. Those who aren’t fit or adaptable will be culled either way. Though I prefer natural selection over the selection of Machiavellian psychos.

Interesting, how far we’ve come, from the principal of government from the City-County level, upward, to the consolidation and inevitable commandeering of Central Power rule from the top down.

As someone dear to me who might be reading this once said, “Maybe the Constitution should have begun and ended with “Congress Shall Make No Laws. This Function Shall be Reserved For The Individual States.”

But, as much as I detest the idea, some control frreak will eventually seize government and succeed in Financializing the Climate. After all, it’s about all that is left that they don’t believe they control, no?

[Professorlocknload]

California drought with no end in sight? Connotation of permanence, much?

Maybe someone can find a pattern here, I haven’t tried. https://www.sacbee.com/2013/12/29/6034170/data-viz-2013-likely-to-be-driest.html

Still have 2.5 months of rain season to go, so we’ll see if 13/14 is the all time driest.

[rapier]

The economic system and thus the culture cannot survive even a 20% reduction in carbon based energy use and it probably can’t survive any decline at all globally. Thus there is no way it will be reduced by choice. I have to be a fatalist about this. Let the optimists be optimists.

I occasionally have this silly thought that Gaia hypothesis, all the rage in the 80’s, which said the earth its mineral and living things is self regulating, taken to an absurd conclusion, means we will have economic collapse. I don’t really buy this idea about some causal and almost mystical self regulating planet but there is a rather satisfying logic to this line of thinking. One can certainly say that the economic system is out of balance and thus so is the earth. There is a link.

I’m loath to grant deniers anything but they are sort of right that the climate is always changing, but admittedly not usually so quickly. At any rate it seems we had been in a climatological sweet spot since the end of the last glacial advance which certainly played a part in our economic and population explosions. The latter, the population one is rarely brought up. To put it kindly, as if that’s possible, some decline in population seems probable. Blame economics, blame climate, blame both if you will. Americans above all suppose, backed by experience, that great historical events and trends do not threaten their lives. I suppose we might suffer them least and last but won’t be spared. To ramble further, I suppose the current market melt ups are being caused by hot liquid money flowing here to, as Lee Adler calls it, the last Ponzi standing. Setting the US up as the last safe haven.

[TonyPrep]

Yup, the consequences of stopping climate change (if that were possible), or even of minimizing it, need to be described. Have at it!

By the way, on one of Jay Hanson’s sites is this little paper from David Wasdell (PDF). It would seem that the arguing is indeed pointless, because we have already committed future generations to dangerous climate change, and then some.

[Author]

Posts