Digby asks at 42: What sort of people have so little regard for humanity as a whole that they have no scruples about exploiting the planet to ruinous ends, simply to advantage themselves in the present day?
mike says, uh… I think they have recently been referred to as the 1%ers. It may be a fatal quirk of the species that the opportunity for fabulous lifestyle can overcome any loyalty to equity and protection of the commons. I think few of us know how well we would do if we suddenly had a tremendous advantage over the other 99%. Of course, most of us do not make it our life’s work or our family’s heritage to be in that position. There are definitely some predatory individuals and families who have a lot of influence on public policy and an apparent shortage of commitment to the public good.
I know that was a rhetorical question, but the answer is well-known. The right question might be, what should we do about people have so little regard for humanity as a whole that they have no scruples about exploiting the planet to ruinous ends, simply to advantage themselves in the present day?
For now, those persons are off my christmas card list. Let’s see how they like that!
Warm regards
Mike
Nemesissays
@Digby Scorgie, #42
“… What concerns me is his fear of interference by “vested interests” — that natural resources are “not for the exploitation and ruination by a few”. It bothers me that those “vested interests” and those “few” should even exist.”
Well, capitalism is about making as much profit as possible, not about “saving the planet”. That’s a hard fact. I have been somewhat curious for many years now, where this will lead to in the end….No, not curious anymore, the outcome is more than obvious :)
I’ve previously opined that the whole question of 100% renewable energy is a bit ‘straw-mannish’; however, that opinion is clearly not shared by a team at Lappeenranta University of Technology, in Finland, with the Energy Watch Group. They have a new analysis of just such a global scenario, recently presented on the sidelines of the ongoing COP in Bonn.
I have no idea how rigorous this analysis is, though EWG has been publishing analyses since 2006, but it does make Jacobson & Delucchi at Stanford less of an outlier. But it’s quite a different scenario; Lappeenranta/EWG envisions a system increasing dominated by solar PV and storage, with seasonal-level storage provided by renewable-powered syngas.
There’s a summary PDF available, but it adds little to the article I’ve already linked (and which includes the summary link in any case.) The study itself will be available here:
What to do? I see only two courses open to the likes of us. One is to go live on locusts in the wilderness, if there is any wilderness left. The other is surreptitiously to set up within the economic Juggernaut certain new cogs and wheels whereby the residual love of nature, inherent even in Rotarians, may be made to recreate at least a fraction of those values which their love of “progress” is destroying. A briefer way to put it is: if we want Mr. Babbitt to rebuild outdoor America, we must let him use the same tools wherewith he destroyed it. He knows no other.
“Game and Wild Life Conservation” [1932]; Published in The River of the Mother of God and Other Essays by Aldo Leopold, Susan L. Flader and J. Baird Callicott (eds.) 1991, p. 165-166.
What more delightful avocation than to take a piece of land and, by cautious experimentation, to prove how it works? What more substantial service to conservation than to practice it on one’s own land?
“Grand-Opera Game” [1932]; Published in The River of the Mother of God and Other Essays by Aldo Leopold, Susan L. Flader and J. Baird Callicott (eds.) 1991, p. 172.
aaaand, another movie review, this from Howard Tayler (schlockmercenary.com):
Geostorm
Tuesday October 24, 2017 • Howard Tayler
Geostorm is to climate science what Armageddon was to rocket science. It’s also to rocket science what Armageddon was to rocket science, but if I keep going I’ll have described an entire course catalog.
The message of the film, “let’s take care of our planet responsibly,” is delivered a little heavy-handedly, and since the audience for the film is the crowd who’s just there for the popcorn, I’m not sure it’ll be received as intended. Still, it’s nice of the filmmakers to give it a shot.
Geostorm arrives on my list at the lower middle of the “not awesome, not disappointing” pack.
patricksays
There are now 60 members of the truly bipartisan Climate Caucus. That’s 30 R’s and 30 D’s.
Mike (@51): Do you have empirical evidence that the 1% is any less environmentally conscious than the 99%? That’s not to question whether or not the 1% are particularly environmentally conscious, but I see little evidence that the 99% are either.
Research Letter
Drivers of Continued Surface Warming After Cessation of Carbon Emissions
First published: 28 October 2017
DOI: 10.1002/2017GL075080
Abstract
The climate response after cessation of carbon emissions is examined here, exploiting a single equation connecting surface warming to cumulative carbon emissions. The multicentennial response to an idealized pulse of carbon is considered by diagnosing a 1,000 year integration of an Earth system model (Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory ESM2M) and an ensemble of efficient Earth system model simulations. After emissions cease, surface temperature evolves according to (i) how much of the emitted carbon remains in the atmosphere and (ii) how much of the additional radiative forcing warms the surface rather than the ocean interior. The peak in surface temperature is delayed in time after carbon emissions cease through the decline in ocean heat uptake, which in turn increases the proportion of radiative forcing warming the surface. Eventually, after many centuries, surface temperature declines as the radiative forcing decreases through the excess atmospheric CO2 being taken up by the ocean and land.
Plain Language Summary
The climate response after carbon emissions cease is examined here, exploiting a combination of theory and diagnostics of an Earth system model. The multicentennial response to an idealized pulse of carbon is considered over 1,000 years. After emissions cease, surface temperature evolves according to (i) how much of the emitted carbon remains in the atmosphere and (ii) how much of the additional radiative forcing warms the surface rather than the ocean interior. Surface temperature continues to increase after carbon emissions cease through a decline in ocean heat uptake, which increases the proportion of radiative forcing warming the surface. Eventually, after many centuries, surface temperature declines as the excess atmospheric carbon dioxide is taken up by the ocean and land.
SN at 56 “The Washington Post-ABC News poll asked respondents how they’d vote in a redo of the 2016 election, and, if anything, Clinton seems to have lost more ground than Trump. Among those who voted, 46 percent say they picked Clinton last year and 43 percent picked Trump — a slightly more favorable sample than the 2016 election, in which Clinton won the popular vote by two percentage points. But in a head-to-head rematch, Clinton’s support drops even more than Trump’s does, and they wind up in a 40-40 tie.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/06/12-months-later-trump-would-probably-still-win-the-2016-election/?utm_term=.f304a9d21d7d
I think the poll actually indicates that Trump would still beat Clinton in a head to head vote. That is slightly different from saying they would vote for him again. Little climate connection that I can see, but still important to frame the poll accurately imho. No offense meant to Scott, in any interpretation or framing it is remarkable that the Trump voters have not recognized really serious flaws in their guy.
Cheers
Mike
Killiansays
Don’t treat me like a fool because you got called on your suicidal ideations. There are no spaces, just you twisting out of what you said. Trying to. We’ve discussed your pretentiousness before. If, by chance, there is something more you intended to be understood via your word salad. I do not think you are being so clever I can’t catch your meaning, I think you are engaging in B.S, of a high order and fooling yourself of the reasons why.
We agree on much, but your consistent whining that nothing can or will change does not belong in public discourse. Save it for the confessional or other sordid melancholia. You can, of course, continue, but I, for one, have no respect for it and feel it makes your contributions here suspect in that it makes them look like mere mental self-satisfaction, if you catch my drift. Else, why post if there’s no hope?
So, keep it up or don’t. I won’t comment on it further. However, I will also likely stop reading what you post given the context.
Killiansays
Oops. Got interrupted. The following should have read:
“If, by chance, there is something more you intended to be understood via your word salad, then just say it. Others are not responsible for interpretation of intentionally obtuse language. Were you a student in my EFL classes, I’d stop you and tell you to speak more directly out of respect for your peers. It is one thing to communicate at a given level because all present are. It is another entirely to assume all can, or are willing to take the time to interpret what should have been stated clearly in the first place.”
Killiansays
The soils (and nutrients) are blowin’ (away) in the wind. Highlights the challenge of curtailing climate change when we are still debilitating the planet.
…what should we do about people have so little regard for humanity as a whole that they have no scruples about exploiting the planet to ruinous ends, simply to advantage themselves in the present day?
For now, those persons are off my christmas card list. Let’s see how they like that!
Well, maybe that’s how we solve our systemic carbon issues by individual action!
David B. Benson @353/354 Oct UVs,
My managing to miss Tommy’s link @31 reminds me that I also failed to spot a link of yours concerning the mid-Ploicene Warm Period, although that was under more understandable circumstances. So my muted apologies for not delving further than the first comment in the thread you linked to @325/326. I therefore failed to note your reference to Molnar (2008). There is actually plenty of literature setting out various arguments for differing timings of the Panama sea way closure. And I feel the contradictary conclusions of O’Dea et al (2016) would carry more weight than Molnar. At best, we can say that there is no certain time for this closure, although the example of Drakes Passage (Livermore et al (2007)) suggests an answer is possible but that “closure” may not prove to be a single event and any quoted timing may differ depending on whether you are concerned with ocean currents/climate or the spread of fauna.
Thus I would caution against judging on “the irrelevancy of the closure of the Panama seaway (because) it happened much earlier,” although certainly I would agree “the more interesting question is why the first glaciation at close to 3 million years ago.”
In this regard, note the ideas set out in Haug & Kalgwin (2004) (linked @346) which cites Driscoll & Haug (1998) who proposed that following the mid-Pliocene Warm Period, ice growth resulted from a new cold fresh-water surface in the Arctic post-Panama-closure, this resulting from increased precipitation. Of course, this fresh-water cap still exists today and it is the inability of warm sub-surface waters to break that fresh-water cap which is what gives the potential futures set out in Hansen et al (2016) their big impact (bigger and more quickly than that set out in DeConto & Pollard (2017)), the paper you cite @354-OctUV.
Thomas @37.
I assume you being a prescient ‘futurist’ (as you tell us you are @47) allows you to know when to spit out your chewing gum and concentrate properly. Mere morals, even those who don’t chew gum, do suffer from occasional lapses in concentration. (Although momentary HTML glitches are also not unknown.)
Seeing you link now, I note that it is James Hansen’s misquote of Churchill you present, along with your very-own misquote of Hansen. (The corrected Hansen quote is far more charteristic of Hansen.)
Yet it is difficult to reconcile Hansen’s assertion that he is not dwelling on “the growing climate crisis” or “the injustice of climate change” if he insists he wishes only to “note that greenhouse gas climate forcings are accelerating, not decelerating, and sea level rise and ocean acidification are accelerating. We confront a mortal threat, …” Perhaps Hansen need a little more practice in Churchillian-esque speechifying.
Of course we should also remember that Hansen has admitted he is an “outlier” when it comes to SLR predictions (and Hansen is far more of an “outlier” than Churchill was when he made the speech (mis)quoted by Hansen). While Hansen has now set out reason for a potential future with projected 250mm SLR/yr for 2100 and does no more than say SLR is accelerating in this COP23 speech (which is of course difficult to sensibly argue against), he also talks of accelerationg GHG forcing. His citing of Hansen et al (2017) leaves him also open to accusations of cherry-picking over the “greenhouse gas climate forcings.”
You will note Hansen et al (2017)’s Fig14 plotting running 5-year means of ΔF for GHGs shows a strong acceleration but using US EPA data for these years yields a very small acceleration (less than 1%/yr) and if the 2016 data is ignored on the grounds of it being so strongly influenced by El Nino, that acceleration is just 0.25%/yr. Indeed, it is arguable with flat FF CO2 emissions the last couple of years and CH4 levels growing less strongly, that ΔF for GHGs is peaking and not “accelerating” at all. (I am sure you will well remember that this paucity of forcing acceleration has been explained to you before.)
zebrasays
Kevin McKinney #53,
Not to poop on the party, but… they figured out that Russia and Central Asia could do it by 2030.
Now, explain to me why Russia would not do everything it can to prevent making its only source of revenue other than arms sales a stranded asset?
This is yet another issue that people just don’t like to talk about. Changing the global dynamic requires lots of geopolitical subtlety and that neo-whatever political acumen, which doesn’t mesh well with the moralistic and idealistic pretensions of many.
MB at 60 asks: Do you have empirical evidence that the 1% is any less environmentally conscious than the 99%?
Mike says, oh sure, I think the empirical evidence exists in many metrics. Here is one: The richest 10% of people produce half of Earth’s climate-harming fossil-fuel emissions, while the poorest half contribute a mere 10%, British charity Oxfam said in a report released Wednesday…
The report said that an average person among the richest one percent emits 175 times more carbon than his or her counterpart among the bottom 10%.
You frame your question about environmental consciousness and that is an interesting ploy. I suspect that almost no large slices are sufficiently environmentally conscious, but the 1%ers are creating 175 times more impact than the counterpart is in the bottom 10 percent.
November 9, 2017 404.66 ppm NOAA-ESRL
November 9, 2016 402.94 ppm NOAA-ESRL
1.72 ppm, noisy number, but nice to see any numbers under 2 ppm.
Cheers
Mike
nigeljsays
Some good news among the gloom. Some businesses have become ‘ethical’ businesses as article below.
I wonder if this would become a global trend, or whether profit motive, cheating rules, and exploitation is just too strong?
Perhaps it might slowly become a dominant trend but cant see the Koch brothers being early adopters. Like Zebra points out its about who owns / controls basic resources.
49 – KM
“So–what do we do to ‘solve this as individuals’? I’m all ears.”
KM, well, I’m all mouth, so YOU are in luck. :)
The solution to the AGW crisis as it is described by climate scientists (too much CO2 from FFs) is well known. There is no debate on it among those who agree with AGW theory. Just stop using FFs. Who has done that so far? Not very many. Instead they cry and moan about Trump. We’ve al been told that all other nations are WAY better than the US on stopping the AGW runaway train. Thus, if all of those other nations plus the 1/2 of Americans that agree with the scientists simply stop using FFs, the problem will be solved. Let the Trumpsters continue to use their FF powered cars, airplanes, home heating, etc. The number of Trumpsters is not significant and those few will have no significant impact on AGW, AND as they age they will die out. The problem is that all of those who dislike Trump are not willing to stop using FFs. So, what it boils down to is that the problem is not Trumpsters, but those who dislike him. Be the change you wish to see in the world. You have the power.
“A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll that found 91% of Trump voters said they’d vote for him again.”
I’m not surprised. Many people are very reluctant to admit they make wrong decisions, so keep on with same stupidity. From Psychology Today. “The Mindset That Makes It Hard to Admit You’re Wrong”
When it comes to achieving collective economic benefit, what Musk and others recognize is that old chestnut: You can’t beat something with nothing.
That’s a succinct characterization of the Drama of the Commons, z. I don’t know that ownership of resources is at the root of the problem, though, but rather refusal to own all the costs of liquidating them. The climate-change cost of fossil energy is socialized by both producers and consumers, in the market price of fuels. Why would fossil fuel producers dig the stuff up if they couldn’t make a profit selling it to us? Why would we pay more for fuel than the seller charges us? Why would the seller charge us more than we’re willing to pay for an equivalent alternative?
One way or another, though, it’s consumers who complete the transfer of each atom of fossil carbon to the climatically active pool, in order to enjoy the private benefit of the energy thus obtained. That puts the responsibility on each of us to act collectively, to internalize the marginal climate-change cost of our own energy consumption in our family budgets.
If we collectively decide to tax fossil fuel producers per tonne of carbon, they’ll still maximize their long-term profits. They’ll either book it as a production cost and pass at least some of it on to consumers, or they’ll cut their losses by leaving the business, raising fuel prices by reducing supply. Some producers will shift their investments to carbon-neutral energy, expecting to make a profit selling it at prices that compete successfully with fossil carbon.
What more delightful avocation than to take a piece of land and, by cautious experimentation, to prove how it works? What more substantial service to conservation than to practice it on one’s own land?
Thanks Hank. Of all conservationist writers, Leopold’s point of view most closely matches my own. As an American, I might only add to the above “and to the extent feasible, put it back the way it was before the Columbian Exchange.”
Al Bundysays
martin B: Do you have empirical evidence that the 1% is any less environmentally conscious than the 99%?
Al: Uh, you’ve fallen for a seriously stupid argument. Basically, you’re saying that folks who have ZERO power and little discretionary income are just as culpable for stuff they have NO control of as those who have tremendous power and amazing amounts of discretionary income. You must be a Republican, because you have no sense of scale.
If you want to improve your mindset, please research “The Gentlemen’s code” of days gone by in England. You see, “All men are created equal” is a stupid way to analyze ethics and morals. Power and money are not just assets but RESPONSIBILITIES. Thus, those without power and money have little or no responsibility while the rich (woe to them) MUST do the right thing. Remember, the little guy simply buys what’s available at the Evil Empire (Walmart) and seriously, are you saying that poor folks whose wages have been slashed by evil Republicans should live under a bridge so as not to spew carbon? That they should shivver in the cold instead of heating their RENTED house that they have no power to insulate?
Naw, FORCE the landlord to provide a well-insulated home. After all, the landlord is the only one who CAN do diddly.
Only an evil piece of **** would use the “equality” argument to torch the poor.
Thomassays
46 zebra, looks to me like you’re completely missing the point while holding your wheel barrow handles in a very tight grip.
Which is fine of course. It’s what almost everyone does pretty much 24/7 for 70+ years or so. :-)
51 mike, humourous and yet on point and exceedingly realistic. Basically nothing much any individual can do bar cut the psychopaths form one’s xmas card list.
52 Nemesis, may add “more than bleeding obvious” – been writ large since Hansen rocked up for a congressional hearing in 1988?
62 mike says: “….it is remarkable that the Trump voters have not recognized really serious flaws in their guy”
Not at all remarkable mike. Not one bit a surprise. Perhaps you missed the iceberg while sailing along in your USS Titanic? :-)
Tip study/research a little cognitive science and psychology … and philosophy. I no longer offer such classic tips to closer inspection by the ‘highly intelligent scientists and academics’ who read this site. It’s a waste to waste pixels for little to no change in awareness and understanding of what IS.
63 & 64 Killian, I pity you immensely, and more so your students.
Whoopee do, MA gets all scientific with “My managing to miss Tommy’s …”
Is that really all you got? I suspect dyslexia may be a problem. get iut checked mate. And you attitude problem when others point out you basic reading comporehension mistakes and enraged over-reactions.
Do they sell “Chill Pills” in the UK? Sheesh bah humbug .. get a life man! Seriously!
68 MA Rodger says “Seeing you link now, I note that it is James Hansen’s misquote of Churchill you present, along with your very-own misquote of Hansen …”
Like DOH MA. Talk about big egos and an inability to admit you’re wrong when you’re wrong and laugh about it. Seriously! Grow u man and stop acting like a child who had his lunch stolen by the school yard bully.
Chill-proofed divers are about to plunge beneath the Ross Ice Shelf
in [1]Antarctica in an attempt to figure out how global warming is
affecting the diverse array of life that hangs out there.
And for the first time, they are recording 360-degree video of the
entire six-week expedition to create a virtual-reality experience of
the mysterious polar environment above and below the ice.
“The aim of the outreach is to raise awareness about the unique and
fragile Antarctic coastal under-ice ecosystems and the broader effect
[2]climate change might have on the ecosystems and the whole planet,”
Alf Norkko, a marine biologist at Helsinki University, [3]said in a
statement.
Norkko is one of three Finnish members of the expedition, along with
University of Helsinki marine biologist Joanna Norkko, who is also
married to Alf Norkko, and the explorer and photographer Patrick
Degerman, which set out Thursday (Oct. 26) from Scott Base in
Antarctica. [[4]In Photos: Diving Beneath Antarctica’s Ross Ice Shelf]
In addition to their scientific studies and diving duties beneath the
ice shelf, the Finnish team members are responsible for shooting the
360-degree video and keeping the world informed through a series of
regular updates, photographs and videos on [5]their Facebook page.
As I’ve been saying for years, what we can do and know are not equal to what we can prove, they are far greater. Here’s some nice science backing up my statements over the years we can return to sub-300 ppm, and quickly.
I haven’t been looking hard for cause of drop in the year on year comparison on CO2 ppm because I thought it would either go away or be explained in some manner if I was patient and voila: la nina event started up.
I think that means cold water from deep ocean rising up and creating cooler sea surface temps, which in turn brings cooler air temps over landmasses and the carbon cycle rebounds a bit and is able to hold on to a little more CO2 in the various carbon sinks.
Every ppm increase ramps up the disaster we face in the sixth great extinction.
KIA 85: LIFE is about doing what is necessary to survive, not about “saving the planet”
BPL: Trying surviving without saving the planet.
zebrasays
Mal Adapted #77,
“if we…”
As I often say, Tonto-like: There is no “we”.
That was my point, which I guess you missed. See also my #69 to Kevin.
“We” would have to be Russia and Saudi Arabia and all the other populations which are dependent on this one source of revenue.
You tend to be overly reliant on this “commons” theme. What we have here is a territorial dispute– “we” have not established ownership of the commons, so we have to wage war, hopefully by “other means” than violence.
Go back to my last-month discussion of the end-point of population decline. If the entire population (10 million)in the US lived in NYC, the “commons” concept would work to promote ecologically sound choices. That’s not what we have now at all.
Nemesissays
@Mr Know it All, #52
“Here’s another hard fact: LIFE is about doing what is necessary to survive, not about “saving the planet”. That’s a fact!
Yeah, I love that law of the djungle. I made it for 52 years now in that djungle. Let’s see how long capitalism will make it out there in the djungle. But please don’t expect me to “save the planet”, cause I give a shit about “savig the planet”, just like capitalism does. In the djungle, it’s all about saving oneself, not about “saving the planet”. Mother Nature gives a shit about “saving the planet” too, just like capitalism does. Yeah, Nature, capitalism is a cooking pot, muhahaha, and I love it. Good luck out there in the djungle.
nigeljsays
Barton Levenson @88
“Trying surviving without saving the planet.”
Exactly right. However the mentality of some people is probably just ruin the planet, pollute it into oblivion, and then we can colonise other planets and continue the process, like inter galactic locusts.
They don’t care as long as they have complete individual freedom and profit and no rules. Its like a drug. A dangerous drug.
Killiansays
Wasdell calculates Earth System Sensitivity at, IIRC, 7.8C. This fits with my supposition it had to be higher given observations, which I have argued for about the last decade. (Admittedly, at that time I was conflating sensitivity and ESS.)
Based on this higher number, I calculate we’re already due for 3.48C rise as all feedbacks kick in. That’s 2.2C more based on an average CO2 of 405ppm.
Please check my math.
Comments on Wasdell should be interesting. You’ll find a presentation and a .pdf at the link location.
[Response: Wasdell’s conclusions about ESS are not supportable. He makes fundamental errors in discussing forcings and feedbacks. Not a good basis for any kind of policy or prediction. – gavin]
Thomassays
mike … If La Niña does develop, it is likely to be weak and short-lived.
#76 hehehehe, I love it! Another ‘mea culpa’ moment for the great MA to digest.
Shirley we should all alert the “typo police” post haste. This cannot stand!
Oh thy people who doth live in glass houses ….. hehehehe
Killiansays
Jesus. Blahblahblah…
How do you stop growth? Stop buying. It’s not magic economic theory. Stop. Simplicity ends capitalism. Not laws, they’re made by the wealthy. Not social movements; people are toi embedded to push ard enough, long enough. They can’t risk their jobs and homes.
Simplicity. Only simplicity ends the system ending the ecosystem. If a 10% contraction equals a depression, how does capitalism survive an 80 to 90% reduction? Meanwhile, that same drive to simplicity is the next phase.
Only by no longer caring about ownership, and understanding sustainable societies don’t do ownership, wilk people move en mass to a Commons. The balance with the ecosystem requires too close a balance for individual piles of wealth.
The tragedy of the Commons is only that we have allowed ourselves to be convinced it can’t work, by economists and wealth hoarders, when it is the only thing that can.
Thomassays
‘science’ says: …. from two recent studies on apologies reported by Ohio State University’s Roy Lewicki and colleagues (2016), we can extrapolate to the scenario in which you have to make public the admission that you goofed.
In their first study, acknowledgement of responsibility was exemplified by the statement “I was wrong in what I did, and I accepted responsibility for my actions” (p. 183).
As it turned out, the participants in the study rated the acceptance of responsibility component as the most effective form of apology, followed closely by an offer to repair the damage and then third by an explanation of the mistake.
A second study involving a somewhat different procedure further supported the value of accepting responsibility as the basis for an apology.
Apologies, unlike admissions of wrongdoing, invariably involve the fact that there’s an identifiable victim.
It’s important to the victim, Lewicki and his collaborators point out, for transgressors to take ownership of the harmful action, even though it might make them seem incompetent or dishonest.
This is yet another key reason to admit to wrongdoing — it shows that you respect the people who were affected by your actions(words).
It can be the ultimate expression of egocentrism, or even narcissism, to focus only on your own self-image and how it is harmed by violation of competence or integrity expectations held by others toward you.
Instead, by admitting the wrongdoing, you show that you value them as much — or more than — you value your own need to seem infallible.
RE #63 #64 Killian killing clarity of communication yet again …..
My comment at #32 was as clear as day.
The POINT is obvious.
The call for CHANGE globally is patently clear of how to address the ELEPHANT in the room, namely the USA
…. now deal with it with an ounce of clarity if at all possible Killian
… you know LIKE READ IT PROPERLY – WHAT I SAID IN CONTEXT TO #17 & #20
32 Thomas says:
8 Nov 2017 at 3:35 AM
#17 & #20
“For that reason, all Americans need to understand the risks we face, and the impact our choices will have on our future.”
Ha, that’ll be the day when hell freezes over! They’ve never understood before, on any critical subject matter, so they are not going to be having a ‘road to Damascus’ experience over Climate Change now, nor in the future.
Collectively, too damn stoopid and narcissistic – ie immature, ignorant, gullible, selfish and self-centered!
The best thing the world of nations could do is to ignore the whole country, ban all commerce with it, cut diplomatic ties, and stop kowtowing to it’s rank idiocracy & unique brand of collective lunacy.
[end quote]
Or at least STOP with the FALSE ACCUSATIONS based on your own incompetence and knee-jerk over-reactions and AMATEUR HOUR PSYCHOLOGY aka CRYSTAL BALL GAZING and get grounded into reality for once.
By all means “disagree” with my opinion/conclusion and recommendation to the world, but stop the PERSONAL JUDGEMENT CRAP Killian ….
Mike (@70): I am in no way shape or form contesting the environmental impact of the top 1% in aggregate (or 10% from your source) relative to the bottom 10% (or even 50%, I suspect…). But that wasn’t the original question. The question asked who had a lack of “regard for humanity” or of “scruples about exploiting the planet to ruinous ends…”. But to be among the global richest 1% means merely (I know public school teachers and social workers in this camp) having a modest apartment in New York City. I’d be willing to bet that I (with an apartment that barely gets to 1000 sq ft, and who steps into a car probably fewer than 40 times a year) am not the only global 1%-er commenting on this blog — let alone global 10%-ers, which probably includes most of us frequenting this space. And I guarantee that my carbon footprint is less than a lot of the non 1%-ers in less urban area of the US, let alone one who “rolls coal”. THAT’s showing disregard.
So, when you say 1%-ers, you might want to consider the diversity that falls into this bucket.
“The richest 10% of people produce half of Earth’s climate-harming fossil-fuel emissions, while the poorest half contribute a mere 10%, British charity Oxfam said in a report released Wednesday… ”
That richest 10% is ~ 700,000,000 people – basically, the developed nations – particularly Europe and the USA. That would include everyone reading this post. We are the ones belching the most CO2. Be the change you want the world to become. You have all the power and resources you need to save the planet with respect to CO2, since, as we all know very well, only the insignificant few who are Trumpsters actively want to destroy the planet.
Digby asks at 42: What sort of people have so little regard for humanity as a whole that they have no scruples about exploiting the planet to ruinous ends, simply to advantage themselves in the present day?
mike says, uh… I think they have recently been referred to as the 1%ers. It may be a fatal quirk of the species that the opportunity for fabulous lifestyle can overcome any loyalty to equity and protection of the commons. I think few of us know how well we would do if we suddenly had a tremendous advantage over the other 99%. Of course, most of us do not make it our life’s work or our family’s heritage to be in that position. There are definitely some predatory individuals and families who have a lot of influence on public policy and an apparent shortage of commitment to the public good.
I know that was a rhetorical question, but the answer is well-known. The right question might be, what should we do about people have so little regard for humanity as a whole that they have no scruples about exploiting the planet to ruinous ends, simply to advantage themselves in the present day?
For now, those persons are off my christmas card list. Let’s see how they like that!
Warm regards
Mike
@Digby Scorgie, #42
“… What concerns me is his fear of interference by “vested interests” — that natural resources are “not for the exploitation and ruination by a few”. It bothers me that those “vested interests” and those “few” should even exist.”
Well, capitalism is about making as much profit as possible, not about “saving the planet”. That’s a hard fact. I have been somewhat curious for many years now, where this will lead to in the end….No, not curious anymore, the outcome is more than obvious :)
I’ve previously opined that the whole question of 100% renewable energy is a bit ‘straw-mannish’; however, that opinion is clearly not shared by a team at Lappeenranta University of Technology, in Finland, with the Energy Watch Group. They have a new analysis of just such a global scenario, recently presented on the sidelines of the ongoing COP in Bonn.
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/11/09/100-global-renewable-electricity-no-longer-flight-fancy-cost-effective-current-system/
I have no idea how rigorous this analysis is, though EWG has been publishing analyses since 2006, but it does make Jacobson & Delucchi at Stanford less of an outlier. But it’s quite a different scenario; Lappeenranta/EWG envisions a system increasing dominated by solar PV and storage, with seasonal-level storage provided by renewable-powered syngas.
There’s a summary PDF available, but it adds little to the article I’ve already linked (and which includes the summary link in any case.) The study itself will be available here:
http://energywatchgroup.org/studies/
But for the moment, it’s still listed as ‘forthcoming.’
“Game and Wild Life Conservation” [1932]; Published in The River of the Mother of God and Other Essays by Aldo Leopold, Susan L. Flader and J. Baird Callicott (eds.) 1991, p. 165-166.
“Grand-Opera Game” [1932]; Published in The River of the Mother of God and Other Essays by Aldo Leopold, Susan L. Flader and J. Baird Callicott (eds.) 1991, p. 172.
http://www.producer.com/2017/01/survey-reveals-amazing-soil-loss-in-great-plains-region/
A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll that found 91% of Trump voters said they’d vote for him again.
aaaand, another movie review, this from Howard Tayler (schlockmercenary.com):
There are now 60 members of the truly bipartisan Climate Caucus. That’s 30 R’s and 30 D’s.
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/climate-solutions-caucus-reaches-60-members/
At Wednesday’s House Science committee hearing ,Congressman Posey posed two of the great climate mitigation questions of the age.
Mike (@51): Do you have empirical evidence that the 1% is any less environmentally conscious than the 99%? That’s not to question whether or not the 1% are particularly environmentally conscious, but I see little evidence that the 99% are either.
SN at 56 “The Washington Post-ABC News poll asked respondents how they’d vote in a redo of the 2016 election, and, if anything, Clinton seems to have lost more ground than Trump. Among those who voted, 46 percent say they picked Clinton last year and 43 percent picked Trump — a slightly more favorable sample than the 2016 election, in which Clinton won the popular vote by two percentage points. But in a head-to-head rematch, Clinton’s support drops even more than Trump’s does, and they wind up in a 40-40 tie.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/06/12-months-later-trump-would-probably-still-win-the-2016-election/?utm_term=.f304a9d21d7d
I think the poll actually indicates that Trump would still beat Clinton in a head to head vote. That is slightly different from saying they would vote for him again. Little climate connection that I can see, but still important to frame the poll accurately imho. No offense meant to Scott, in any interpretation or framing it is remarkable that the Trump voters have not recognized really serious flaws in their guy.
Cheers
Mike
Don’t treat me like a fool because you got called on your suicidal ideations. There are no spaces, just you twisting out of what you said. Trying to. We’ve discussed your pretentiousness before. If, by chance, there is something more you intended to be understood via your word salad. I do not think you are being so clever I can’t catch your meaning, I think you are engaging in B.S, of a high order and fooling yourself of the reasons why.
We agree on much, but your consistent whining that nothing can or will change does not belong in public discourse. Save it for the confessional or other sordid melancholia. You can, of course, continue, but I, for one, have no respect for it and feel it makes your contributions here suspect in that it makes them look like mere mental self-satisfaction, if you catch my drift. Else, why post if there’s no hope?
So, keep it up or don’t. I won’t comment on it further. However, I will also likely stop reading what you post given the context.
Oops. Got interrupted. The following should have read:
“If, by chance, there is something more you intended to be understood via your word salad, then just say it. Others are not responsible for interpretation of intentionally obtuse language. Were you a student in my EFL classes, I’d stop you and tell you to speak more directly out of respect for your peers. It is one thing to communicate at a given level because all present are. It is another entirely to assume all can, or are willing to take the time to interpret what should have been stated clearly in the first place.”
The soils (and nutrients) are blowin’ (away) in the wind. Highlights the challenge of curtailing climate change when we are still debilitating the planet.
http://www.producer.com/2017/01/survey-reveals-amazing-soil-loss-in-great-plains-region/
It’s not just no-till. It must also include cover crops, green manures and mulches, etc., etc.
Mike said:
Well, maybe that’s how we solve our systemic carbon issues by individual action!
David B. Benson @353/354 Oct UVs,
My managing to miss Tommy’s link @31 reminds me that I also failed to spot a link of yours concerning the mid-Ploicene Warm Period, although that was under more understandable circumstances. So my muted apologies for not delving further than the first comment in the thread you linked to @325/326. I therefore failed to note your reference to Molnar (2008). There is actually plenty of literature setting out various arguments for differing timings of the Panama sea way closure. And I feel the contradictary conclusions of O’Dea et al (2016) would carry more weight than Molnar. At best, we can say that there is no certain time for this closure, although the example of Drakes Passage (Livermore et al (2007)) suggests an answer is possible but that “closure” may not prove to be a single event and any quoted timing may differ depending on whether you are concerned with ocean currents/climate or the spread of fauna.
Thus I would caution against judging on “the irrelevancy of the closure of the Panama seaway (because) it happened much earlier,” although certainly I would agree “the more interesting question is why the first glaciation at close to 3 million years ago.”
In this regard, note the ideas set out in Haug & Kalgwin (2004) (linked @346) which cites Driscoll & Haug (1998) who proposed that following the mid-Pliocene Warm Period, ice growth resulted from a new cold fresh-water surface in the Arctic post-Panama-closure, this resulting from increased precipitation. Of course, this fresh-water cap still exists today and it is the inability of warm sub-surface waters to break that fresh-water cap which is what gives the potential futures set out in Hansen et al (2016) their big impact (bigger and more quickly than that set out in DeConto & Pollard (2017)), the paper you cite @354-OctUV.
Thomas @37.
I assume you being a prescient ‘futurist’ (as you tell us you are @47) allows you to know when to spit out your chewing gum and concentrate properly. Mere morals, even those who don’t chew gum, do suffer from occasional lapses in concentration. (Although momentary HTML glitches are also not unknown.)
Seeing you link now, I note that it is James Hansen’s misquote of Churchill you present, along with your very-own misquote of Hansen. (The corrected Hansen quote is far more charteristic of Hansen.)
Yet it is difficult to reconcile Hansen’s assertion that he is not dwelling on “the growing climate crisis” or “the injustice of climate change” if he insists he wishes only to “note that greenhouse gas climate forcings are accelerating, not decelerating, and sea level rise and ocean acidification are accelerating. We confront a mortal threat, …” Perhaps Hansen need a little more practice in Churchillian-esque speechifying.
Of course we should also remember that Hansen has admitted he is an “outlier” when it comes to SLR predictions (and Hansen is far more of an “outlier” than Churchill was when he made the speech (mis)quoted by Hansen). While Hansen has now set out reason for a potential future with projected 250mm SLR/yr for 2100 and does no more than say SLR is accelerating in this COP23 speech (which is of course difficult to sensibly argue against), he also talks of accelerationg GHG forcing. His citing of Hansen et al (2017) leaves him also open to accusations of cherry-picking over the “greenhouse gas climate forcings.”
You will note Hansen et al (2017)’s Fig14 plotting running 5-year means of ΔF for GHGs shows a strong acceleration but using US EPA data for these years yields a very small acceleration (less than 1%/yr) and if the 2016 data is ignored on the grounds of it being so strongly influenced by El Nino, that acceleration is just 0.25%/yr. Indeed, it is arguable with flat FF CO2 emissions the last couple of years and CH4 levels growing less strongly, that ΔF for GHGs is peaking and not “accelerating” at all. (I am sure you will well remember that this paucity of forcing acceleration has been explained to you before.)
Kevin McKinney #53,
Not to poop on the party, but… they figured out that Russia and Central Asia could do it by 2030.
Now, explain to me why Russia would not do everything it can to prevent making its only source of revenue other than arms sales a stranded asset?
This is yet another issue that people just don’t like to talk about. Changing the global dynamic requires lots of geopolitical subtlety and that neo-whatever political acumen, which doesn’t mesh well with the moralistic and idealistic pretensions of many.
MB at 60 asks: Do you have empirical evidence that the 1% is any less environmentally conscious than the 99%?
Mike says, oh sure, I think the empirical evidence exists in many metrics. Here is one: The richest 10% of people produce half of Earth’s climate-harming fossil-fuel emissions, while the poorest half contribute a mere 10%, British charity Oxfam said in a report released Wednesday…
The report said that an average person among the richest one percent emits 175 times more carbon than his or her counterpart among the bottom 10%.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/worlds-richest-10-produce-half-of-global-carbon-emissions-says-oxfam
You frame your question about environmental consciousness and that is an interesting ploy. I suspect that almost no large slices are sufficiently environmentally conscious, but the 1%ers are creating 175 times more impact than the counterpart is in the bottom 10 percent.
November 9, 2017 404.66 ppm NOAA-ESRL
November 9, 2016 402.94 ppm NOAA-ESRL
1.72 ppm, noisy number, but nice to see any numbers under 2 ppm.
Cheers
Mike
Some good news among the gloom. Some businesses have become ‘ethical’ businesses as article below.
https://www.magzter.com/preview/13970/250663#page/1
I wonder if this would become a global trend, or whether profit motive, cheating rules, and exploitation is just too strong?
Perhaps it might slowly become a dominant trend but cant see the Koch brothers being early adopters. Like Zebra points out its about who owns / controls basic resources.
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=N0Z9AwAAQBAJ&rdid=book-N0Z9AwAAQBAJ&rdot=1&source=gbs_vpt_read&pcampaignid=books_booksearch_viewport
Promising developments in power storage
49 – KM
“So–what do we do to ‘solve this as individuals’? I’m all ears.”
KM, well, I’m all mouth, so YOU are in luck. :)
The solution to the AGW crisis as it is described by climate scientists (too much CO2 from FFs) is well known. There is no debate on it among those who agree with AGW theory. Just stop using FFs. Who has done that so far? Not very many. Instead they cry and moan about Trump. We’ve al been told that all other nations are WAY better than the US on stopping the AGW runaway train. Thus, if all of those other nations plus the 1/2 of Americans that agree with the scientists simply stop using FFs, the problem will be solved. Let the Trumpsters continue to use their FF powered cars, airplanes, home heating, etc. The number of Trumpsters is not significant and those few will have no significant impact on AGW, AND as they age they will die out. The problem is that all of those who dislike Trump are not willing to stop using FFs. So, what it boils down to is that the problem is not Trumpsters, but those who dislike him. Be the change you wish to see in the world. You have the power.
> soil
Killian, op. cit. at 55
“A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll that found 91% of Trump voters said they’d vote for him again.”
I’m not surprised. Many people are very reluctant to admit they make wrong decisions, so keep on with same stupidity. From Psychology Today. “The Mindset That Makes It Hard to Admit You’re Wrong”
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201703/the-mindset-makes-it-hard-admit-youre-wrong
MA Rodger @68
“Mere morals, even those who don’t chew gum, do suffer from occasional lapses in concentration.”
I assume you mean mortals? A lapse in concentration perhaps? Most unlike you!
zebra:
That’s a succinct characterization of the Drama of the Commons, z. I don’t know that ownership of resources is at the root of the problem, though, but rather refusal to own all the costs of liquidating them. The climate-change cost of fossil energy is socialized by both producers and consumers, in the market price of fuels. Why would fossil fuel producers dig the stuff up if they couldn’t make a profit selling it to us? Why would we pay more for fuel than the seller charges us? Why would the seller charge us more than we’re willing to pay for an equivalent alternative?
One way or another, though, it’s consumers who complete the transfer of each atom of fossil carbon to the climatically active pool, in order to enjoy the private benefit of the energy thus obtained. That puts the responsibility on each of us to act collectively, to internalize the marginal climate-change cost of our own energy consumption in our family budgets.
If we collectively decide to tax fossil fuel producers per tonne of carbon, they’ll still maximize their long-term profits. They’ll either book it as a production cost and pass at least some of it on to consumers, or they’ll cut their losses by leaving the business, raising fuel prices by reducing supply. Some producers will shift their investments to carbon-neutral energy, expecting to make a profit selling it at prices that compete successfully with fossil carbon.
Mission accomplished, either way.
Hank Roberts, quoting Aldo Leopold:
Thanks Hank. Of all conservationist writers, Leopold’s point of view most closely matches my own. As an American, I might only add to the above “and to the extent feasible, put it back the way it was before the Columbian Exchange.”
martin B: Do you have empirical evidence that the 1% is any less environmentally conscious than the 99%?
Al: Uh, you’ve fallen for a seriously stupid argument. Basically, you’re saying that folks who have ZERO power and little discretionary income are just as culpable for stuff they have NO control of as those who have tremendous power and amazing amounts of discretionary income. You must be a Republican, because you have no sense of scale.
If you want to improve your mindset, please research “The Gentlemen’s code” of days gone by in England. You see, “All men are created equal” is a stupid way to analyze ethics and morals. Power and money are not just assets but RESPONSIBILITIES. Thus, those without power and money have little or no responsibility while the rich (woe to them) MUST do the right thing. Remember, the little guy simply buys what’s available at the Evil Empire (Walmart) and seriously, are you saying that poor folks whose wages have been slashed by evil Republicans should live under a bridge so as not to spew carbon? That they should shivver in the cold instead of heating their RENTED house that they have no power to insulate?
Naw, FORCE the landlord to provide a well-insulated home. After all, the landlord is the only one who CAN do diddly.
Only an evil piece of **** would use the “equality” argument to torch the poor.
46 zebra, looks to me like you’re completely missing the point while holding your wheel barrow handles in a very tight grip.
Which is fine of course. It’s what almost everyone does pretty much 24/7 for 70+ years or so. :-)
51 mike, humourous and yet on point and exceedingly realistic. Basically nothing much any individual can do bar cut the psychopaths form one’s xmas card list.
52 Nemesis, may add “more than bleeding obvious” – been writ large since Hansen rocked up for a congressional hearing in 1988?
62 mike says: “….it is remarkable that the Trump voters have not recognized really serious flaws in their guy”
Not at all remarkable mike. Not one bit a surprise. Perhaps you missed the iceberg while sailing along in your USS Titanic? :-)
Tip study/research a little cognitive science and psychology … and philosophy. I no longer offer such classic tips to closer inspection by the ‘highly intelligent scientists and academics’ who read this site. It’s a waste to waste pixels for little to no change in awareness and understanding of what IS.
63 & 64 Killian, I pity you immensely, and more so your students.
Whoopee do, MA gets all scientific with “My managing to miss Tommy’s …”
Is that really all you got? I suspect dyslexia may be a problem. get iut checked mate. And you attitude problem when others point out you basic reading comporehension mistakes and enraged over-reactions.
Do they sell “Chill Pills” in the UK? Sheesh bah humbug .. get a life man! Seriously!
68 MA Rodger says “Seeing you link now, I note that it is James Hansen’s misquote of Churchill you present, along with your very-own misquote of Hansen …”
Like DOH MA. Talk about big egos and an inability to admit you’re wrong when you’re wrong and laugh about it. Seriously! Grow u man and stop acting like a child who had his lunch stolen by the school yard bully.
PS re #67 & #68 is all because of this?
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/11/unforced-variations-nov-2017/#comment-686001
OMG alert the ‘quote’ police now! This is a very serious issue – it will not stand! (shades of GHW Bush?) LOL
Hat tip to soylentnews:
Integrating human spaces with “natural” spaces is vital to mitigating and adapting to climate and resource limits.
Here is a simplified process approach. You should be able to recognize specifics can only emerge and be addressed in place.
https://permaculturenews.org/2017/09/05/permaculture-design-5-steps/
As I’ve been saying for years, what we can do and know are not equal to what we can prove, they are far greater. Here’s some nice science backing up my statements over the years we can return to sub-300 ppm, and quickly.
https://m.phys.org/news/2017-11-huge-carbon-soil-minerals.html
52 – Nemesis
“Well, capitalism is about making as much profit as possible, not about “saving the planet”. That’s a hard fact.”
Here’s another hard fact: LIFE is about doing what is necessary to survive, not about “saving the planet”. That’s a fact!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnXgVcrcyWM
:)
People won’t. I hear that all the time.
People will. People are. Simplification makes alk else possible.
https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Bolivia-Produces-More-Than-95-of-Its-Food-Minister-20170731-0023.html
Bob Henson at Category 6 says La Nina has been declared.
https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/la-nia-declared-cooldown-nipping-warmest-autumn-record-northeast-us
I haven’t been looking hard for cause of drop in the year on year comparison on CO2 ppm because I thought it would either go away or be explained in some manner if I was patient and voila: la nina event started up.
I think that means cold water from deep ocean rising up and creating cooler sea surface temps, which in turn brings cooler air temps over landmasses and the carbon cycle rebounds a bit and is able to hold on to a little more CO2 in the various carbon sinks.
Every ppm increase ramps up the disaster we face in the sixth great extinction.
Cheers
Mike
KIA 85: LIFE is about doing what is necessary to survive, not about “saving the planet”
BPL: Trying surviving without saving the planet.
Mal Adapted #77,
“if we…”
As I often say, Tonto-like: There is no “we”.
That was my point, which I guess you missed. See also my #69 to Kevin.
“We” would have to be Russia and Saudi Arabia and all the other populations which are dependent on this one source of revenue.
You tend to be overly reliant on this “commons” theme. What we have here is a territorial dispute– “we” have not established ownership of the commons, so we have to wage war, hopefully by “other means” than violence.
Go back to my last-month discussion of the end-point of population decline. If the entire population (10 million)in the US lived in NYC, the “commons” concept would work to promote ecologically sound choices. That’s not what we have now at all.
@Mr Know it All, #52
“Here’s another hard fact: LIFE is about doing what is necessary to survive, not about “saving the planet”. That’s a fact!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnXgVcrcyWM”
Yeah, I love that law of the djungle. I made it for 52 years now in that djungle. Let’s see how long capitalism will make it out there in the djungle. But please don’t expect me to “save the planet”, cause I give a shit about “savig the planet”, just like capitalism does. In the djungle, it’s all about saving oneself, not about “saving the planet”. Mother Nature gives a shit about “saving the planet” too, just like capitalism does. Yeah, Nature, capitalism is a cooking pot, muhahaha, and I love it. Good luck out there in the djungle.
Barton Levenson @88
“Trying surviving without saving the planet.”
Exactly right. However the mentality of some people is probably just ruin the planet, pollute it into oblivion, and then we can colonise other planets and continue the process, like inter galactic locusts.
They don’t care as long as they have complete individual freedom and profit and no rules. Its like a drug. A dangerous drug.
Wasdell calculates Earth System Sensitivity at, IIRC, 7.8C. This fits with my supposition it had to be higher given observations, which I have argued for about the last decade. (Admittedly, at that time I was conflating sensitivity and ESS.)
Based on this higher number, I calculate we’re already due for 3.48C rise as all feedbacks kick in. That’s 2.2C more based on an average CO2 of 405ppm.
Please check my math.
Comments on Wasdell should be interesting. You’ll find a presentation and a .pdf at the link location.
http://www.apollo-gaia.org/harsh-realities-of-now.html
[Response: Wasdell’s conclusions about ESS are not supportable. He makes fundamental errors in discussing forcings and feedbacks. Not a good basis for any kind of policy or prediction. – gavin]
mike … If La Niña does develop, it is likely to be weak and short-lived.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/outlook/
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
#76 hehehehe, I love it! Another ‘mea culpa’ moment for the great MA to digest.
Shirley we should all alert the “typo police” post haste. This cannot stand!
Oh thy people who doth live in glass houses ….. hehehehe
Jesus. Blahblahblah…
How do you stop growth? Stop buying. It’s not magic economic theory. Stop. Simplicity ends capitalism. Not laws, they’re made by the wealthy. Not social movements; people are toi embedded to push ard enough, long enough. They can’t risk their jobs and homes.
Simplicity. Only simplicity ends the system ending the ecosystem. If a 10% contraction equals a depression, how does capitalism survive an 80 to 90% reduction? Meanwhile, that same drive to simplicity is the next phase.
Only by no longer caring about ownership, and understanding sustainable societies don’t do ownership, wilk people move en mass to a Commons. The balance with the ecosystem requires too close a balance for individual piles of wealth.
The tragedy of the Commons is only that we have allowed ourselves to be convinced it can’t work, by economists and wealth hoarders, when it is the only thing that can.
‘science’ says: …. from two recent studies on apologies reported by Ohio State University’s Roy Lewicki and colleagues (2016), we can extrapolate to the scenario in which you have to make public the admission that you goofed.
In their first study, acknowledgement of responsibility was exemplified by the statement “I was wrong in what I did, and I accepted responsibility for my actions” (p. 183).
As it turned out, the participants in the study rated the acceptance of responsibility component as the most effective form of apology, followed closely by an offer to repair the damage and then third by an explanation of the mistake.
A second study involving a somewhat different procedure further supported the value of accepting responsibility as the basis for an apology.
Apologies, unlike admissions of wrongdoing, invariably involve the fact that there’s an identifiable victim.
It’s important to the victim, Lewicki and his collaborators point out, for transgressors to take ownership of the harmful action, even though it might make them seem incompetent or dishonest.
This is yet another key reason to admit to wrongdoing — it shows that you respect the people who were affected by your actions(words).
It can be the ultimate expression of egocentrism, or even narcissism, to focus only on your own self-image and how it is harmed by violation of competence or integrity expectations held by others toward you.
Instead, by admitting the wrongdoing, you show that you value them as much — or more than — you value your own need to seem infallible.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201703/the-mindset-makes-it-hard-admit-youre-wrong
Mmmmmm :-)
RE #63 #64 Killian killing clarity of communication yet again …..
My comment at #32 was as clear as day.
The POINT is obvious.
The call for CHANGE globally is patently clear of how to address the ELEPHANT in the room, namely the USA
…. now deal with it with an ounce of clarity if at all possible Killian
… you know LIKE READ IT PROPERLY – WHAT I SAID IN CONTEXT TO #17 & #20
32 Thomas says:
8 Nov 2017 at 3:35 AM
#17 & #20
“For that reason, all Americans need to understand the risks we face, and the impact our choices will have on our future.”
Ha, that’ll be the day when hell freezes over! They’ve never understood before, on any critical subject matter, so they are not going to be having a ‘road to Damascus’ experience over Climate Change now, nor in the future.
Collectively, too damn stoopid and narcissistic – ie immature, ignorant, gullible, selfish and self-centered!
The best thing the world of nations could do is to ignore the whole country, ban all commerce with it, cut diplomatic ties, and stop kowtowing to it’s rank idiocracy & unique brand of collective lunacy.
[end quote]
Then take a leaf out of this Maaaaaaaaaate!
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201703/the-mindset-makes-it-hard-admit-youre-wrong
Or at least STOP with the FALSE ACCUSATIONS based on your own incompetence and knee-jerk over-reactions and AMATEUR HOUR PSYCHOLOGY aka CRYSTAL BALL GAZING and get grounded into reality for once.
By all means “disagree” with my opinion/conclusion and recommendation to the world, but stop the PERSONAL JUDGEMENT CRAP Killian ….
Mike (@70): I am in no way shape or form contesting the environmental impact of the top 1% in aggregate (or 10% from your source) relative to the bottom 10% (or even 50%, I suspect…). But that wasn’t the original question. The question asked who had a lack of “regard for humanity” or of “scruples about exploiting the planet to ruinous ends…”. But to be among the global richest 1% means merely (I know public school teachers and social workers in this camp) having a modest apartment in New York City. I’d be willing to bet that I (with an apartment that barely gets to 1000 sq ft, and who steps into a car probably fewer than 40 times a year) am not the only global 1%-er commenting on this blog — let alone global 10%-ers, which probably includes most of us frequenting this space. And I guarantee that my carbon footprint is less than a lot of the non 1%-ers in less urban area of the US, let alone one who “rolls coal”. THAT’s showing disregard.
So, when you say 1%-ers, you might want to consider the diversity that falls into this bucket.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/were-not-even-close-to-being-prepared-for-the-rising-waters/2017/11/09/441f4752-97d7-11e7-87fc-c3f7ee4035c9_story.html
70 – mike
“The richest 10% of people produce half of Earth’s climate-harming fossil-fuel emissions, while the poorest half contribute a mere 10%, British charity Oxfam said in a report released Wednesday… ”
That richest 10% is ~ 700,000,000 people – basically, the developed nations – particularly Europe and the USA. That would include everyone reading this post. We are the ones belching the most CO2. Be the change you want the world to become. You have all the power and resources you need to save the planet with respect to CO2, since, as we all know very well, only the insignificant few who are Trumpsters actively want to destroy the planet.