I'm doing some posting on Andy Revkin's New York Times science blog "Dot Earth" and I'm thinking this Environment Site blog will be all about me keeping an record of some of the things that are taking place over there.
Most of the time I'll be posting interesting things from the comments section, and leave links to the articles in question.
Most of the time I'll be posting interesting things from the comments section, and leave links to the articles in question.
Magne
What exactly is the winning of the climate change debate going to mean?
Fun With CO2 in Greenland - Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.com
Elizabeth: “Party is over, deniers. Has been for a long, long time. No matter what way you try to manipulate this, you’re losing.”
- --
Okay, so I agree with you, somehow. But does this mean that we are going to go for a future that is solar, windy, and otherwise renewable, or does this mean that we’re bound to keep destroying this world like we do these days, simply because it is the way of our glorious sportsmen's, pop stars', princes', princesses', actors' and actresses' civilization?
Are we going to go for a future based on military control over nuclear power facilities? Overpopulation, mass crime and starvation, destruction of natural ecosystems at a rate that is unbelievable, pollution of the rivers, the seas, the oceans, the air, the atmosphere and so on and so forth? Because it is the way we live these days. In a civilization which is supposed to take human beings to planets like Mars, Uranus, and, well, different solar systems?
I wonder. What exactly is the winning of the climate change debate going to mean? A change for the better, or rather a defeatist told-you-so…? I know what I would like to see. But it would take a general change of philosophy that is not at all easy to believe in.
Elizabeth: “Party is over, deniers. Has been for a long, long time. No matter what way you try to manipulate this, you’re losing.”
- --
Okay, so I agree with you, somehow. But does this mean that we are going to go for a future that is solar, windy, and otherwise renewable, or does this mean that we’re bound to keep destroying this world like we do these days, simply because it is the way of our glorious sportsmen's, pop stars', princes', princesses', actors' and actresses' civilization?
Are we going to go for a future based on military control over nuclear power facilities? Overpopulation, mass crime and starvation, destruction of natural ecosystems at a rate that is unbelievable, pollution of the rivers, the seas, the oceans, the air, the atmosphere and so on and so forth? Because it is the way we live these days. In a civilization which is supposed to take human beings to planets like Mars, Uranus, and, well, different solar systems?
I wonder. What exactly is the winning of the climate change debate going to mean? A change for the better, or rather a defeatist told-you-so…? I know what I would like to see. But it would take a general change of philosophy that is not at all easy to believe in.
— Magne Karlsen
Total Comments 2
Comments
-
This may all sound good in theory - but how can anybody "win" a climate change debate?
Can all of these things you mention be regulated in a practical way? Over-regulation of society as a final solution to the "refusal of people to control population on an individual basis" has never worked in the past, and is extremely unlikely to work in the future. Population-economics of that variety is not as simple as planning for natural resource use. The arguments against many of the expressed solutions, will be put forward by their opponents on the basis of social, political, cultural (and some would even say moral) dimensions, that would prevent such measure from ever being considered.
I am not denying or overlooking the very real problems which face the question of sustainability - economic crisis, food crisis, energy crisis, environmental uncertainty (weather/climate) and all varieties of crime and corruption, but the fact remains that history will demonstrate that all experiments of formal state-sponsored social engineering have always failed. Individual leaders may have at times appeared to have come close to taking over-regulation to the point of absolute dominance almost to a practical reality, but these have seldom if ever outlived the leader.
Survival and propagation of Homo sapiens is fundamentally and irrevocably entrenched in our DNA as a species - no amount of reasoning, logic and preaching on the basis of environment, resources, climate, sustainability, etc could ever convince the majority of what is necessary.
The point is - it is since the 1970's (effectively all our lives) that we have been hearing this imminent apocalypse and meltdown story (energy crisis, species extinctions, pollution, ozone depletion were the major issues of that time), but the problem is we are still here (and so are all the other large fauna, except probably the Chinese River Dolphin).
It can never be "business as usual" again, but the fact remains many of the predictions we have been hearing since the 1970's have not come to pass (at least not yet!!!). So, that is part of the reason why so many people will remain unconvinced (in the face of all the crises of the present).
In fact the irony is that they are seldom inspired to be more "green" in lifestyle choices, on the basis of environmental issues, but rather on the basis of things that have an immediate effect on them (like economic recessions, food and fuel prices).Posted 26th-October-2008 at 03:58 AM by Karl
-
I am terribly afraid of a situation in which all inconvenient truths are deliberately ignored. I think it is very possible that a situation like that is developing around here. A situation in which the winners will be those who are best at lying both to themselves and others, and the losers will be those who seem to know too much about the reality of ecological degradation, the reality of the sixth extinction of species, the reality of overpopulation, the reality of war, poverty, hunger and thirst, and the reality of lies, damned lies, and bloody deceit. It’s a grim worldview, I know. But I’ve got every reason to suspect that this shameful situation is our everyday reality now, and that it is based on something much bigger than simple greed. I think this situation is (like an internet friend of mine says) politically expedient, religiously tolerated, and consensually validated: I’m especially thinking of the popular notion that nature will somehow take care of itself, and that there is nothing humanity as a whole or any human in person can do about that. Just ask around. You’ll probably not be amazed at finding out that most people, in tesy, will say that nature will take care of itself quite nicely. Not to make any manipulative enquiries about what that might actually mean, in the long run. -Posted 29th-October-2008 at 09:39 PM by August
Updated 29th-October-2008 at 09:43 PM by August
Total Trackbacks 0
