Killian: “Looking at you, Kevin McKinney. You’re right that you can’t do simplicity as long as you choose to give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s rather than create what Ceasar cannot.”
Fine. As I said, I’m all ears for practical solutions I (and others) can implement now. Also for ones that might have a chance for implementation at scale in the nearish future–say the next couple of decades.
I like the your first principles in many ways. But I feel like we’re long overdue for some “reasoning from there.”
nigeljsays
zebra @194
“About me being “wrong”: Whether you or Killian, pronouncements and assertions without the support of evidence or reason are useless “.
killian, Mal Adapted and myself have all criticised some of your comments and provided plenty of evidence and reason. You are in denial Zebra and counter with wild claims and change the subject! Please dont take that as attack on your general philosophy, with which I have some agreement.
Your thought experiment on ten million people all living in one city, and making different environmental choices to large population. Very thought provoking and best comment I seen on the internet all that week by far. But when I do same thought experiment, I’m not sure people would make the sorts of choices you claim, and that circumstances would be as you described, and I explained some reasons why. I think my reasons were valid and you never explained why you think otherwise! My own view is the effects you claim are real, but probably rather weaker than you think, that’s all. I may be wrong but you need to tell me why I would be wrong.
“I don’t mean this in a personally angry or condescending way, but you live on some paradise-type island that some see as the ultimate haven from the apocalypse, and you’re telling me:The Republicans in America are just going to have to accept this.”
They do. Its as simple as that. We need to seriously figure out how to persuade them better, its our only hope. (This is not incompatible with your own ideas on science / engineering approach to debate, we need that as well).
“Come visit, nigel, and you can look at my neighbor’s Trump signs that are still up…..”
Yes I get all that. Its astonishing and incredible, but we have to find a solution somehow. The same people will be resistant to your ideas of less population.
“So pardon me if I am a bit cynical and pessimistic about humanity and its monkey-nature, and see wishful thinking about what “we can do” as a waste of time.”
Yes understood, I feel exactly the same at times, believe me, its tempting to be very cynical, but sometimes all we have is hope. And its human to discuss what we should do and eventually good comes from it. And we need to discuss right thing to do sometimes. Ethical businesses are emerging, and young people are expecting better of businesses, and better environment and I think its something more than just idealism. So you see moral side is significant at some level as long as its intelligent understanding of morality and not too emotive and monkey natured. Maybe I’m just a hopeless idealist.
Th 190 accuses the US of: ” Money aka Power based upon fossil fuels and nuclear energy and bombs and non-stop belligerence aka global bullying in manifold forms ”
BPL: Let me see… Soviet Union v2.0 has invaded four countries and has just deployed the “Satan II” missile, which has ten warheads, each 40 megatons. Enough to wipe out France or Britain or Texas. SU2 has also interfered in elections in the US and across Europe. As for fossil fuels, SU2 signed a $500 billion dollar agreement with Exxon-Mobil to drill the Arctic, and actually has a vested interest in global warming, as (in their reckoning) they will be one of the few winners from a melting Arctic. But it’s the US that is the “global bully.”
#194 zebra said Dude, read the freakin’ Wikipedia article on TOC! It’s a complicated concept; people with expertise don’t all agree on it. Just using the phrase in a rhetorical way because it sounds good isn’t helpful.
I like Wiki. I use Wiki. But Wiki is current paradigm. Wiki, nor any other arrogant fool, invented Commons: They were the default setting until between 11k years ago and, for most, only 4k years ago, and for a very few, now.
They disagree because they choose to remain arrogantly ignorant. A Commons is nothing more than agreeing to share and how to do so. There is no secret handshake, no tablets on a mountain. They need agreement and rules. Both are bounded by the awareness of the *need* for them. Beyond the need, all is mere details. The keys are those three: Awareness of having no choice, choosing to share, making rules.
A key polar satellite used to measure the arctic ice cap failed a few
days ago, leaving the US with only three others, and those have lived
well beyond their shelf lives. Scientists say there is no chance a new
one can be launched until 2023 or later. None of the current satellites
will still be in operation then. This will put an end to nearly [2]40
years of uninterrupted data on polar ice.
It seems like there would be a backup satellite, right? In fact, there
was a backup satellite ready to go. Then the Trump Administration
destroyed it earlier this year, by order of the US Congress. They said
the storage costs were too high.
“Germany is replacing its nuclear units with renewable energy (wind and solar) as part of its energy transition, the so-called Energiewende. It is using mainly coal to back-up its intermittent renewable energy and as a result, it has increased its coal-fired generation.”
Perhaps you need to consider wider context before rushing to quite such harsh judgement.
Suck it up, peanuttles…. As Einstein said, you can’t solve a problem with the same thinking that created it.
Would ‘the same thinking’ problem include argumentative namecalling as a tactic?
Steven Sullivansays
None of the national discussion in the USA about climate change is going to be driven by the tedious, petty internecine debates you guys are having here. It’s going to be driven by the right-wing ideologue strategies and tactics exposed in Joe Bast’s email, that Russell linked to up there. READ IT.
Because of receding horizons, even some of these collapsed populations are likely underestimated. On eco collapse, Wiki says:
Ecological collapse refers to a situation where an ecosystem suffers a drastic, possibly permanent, reduction in carrying capacity for all organisms, often resulting in mass extinction. Usually, an ecological collapse is precipitated by a disastrous event occurring on a short time scale.
If so, at what point do most here get their come-to-Jesus moment and embrace the only solution for overshoot, and diminishibg returns on comolexity, simplicity?
Mr. Know It Allsays
Some comments above seemed to indicate that rich folks in large houses had a larger carbon footprint than po’ folks in smaller homes. I was cycling this past weekend and I noticed that some of the large homes in more wealthy housing developments had large solar arrays on their roofs. Some were so large that they’d probably be net zero at least on electricity. The smaller homes I saw had few PV panels because the roofs were too small to bother with. Thus, the wealthier folks seemed to have a smaller footprint. Some of those arrays looked large enough to charge an electric vehicle in addition to running the house and dumping the excess into the grid.
You seem to be forgetting (or unaware of) the fact that all goods have an embodied carbon footprint. So putting solar panels on a roof is far from the end-all-and-be-all of carbon footprint reduction, though it may be a helpful step. There is a correlation between consumption and carbon emissions.
It is true, of course, that generalizations–such as ‘all rich folks are x’–are dangerous.
In general.
Ray Ladburysays
Mr. Know It All again demonstrates the profound irony of his name: “Thus, the wealthier folks seemed to have a smaller footprint.”
As if electricity were the only–or even the major contributor to one’s carbon footprint. Dude, I’m glad you aren’t on our side.
nigeljsays
Killian @206 “A Commons is nothing more than agreeing to share and how to do so.”
I disagree. This is where I get frustrated. The idea of a commons has quite different meaning to what Killian says, and has a specific economic definition. Please stop redefining things away form simple dictionary definitions, it makes discussion frigging impossible.
A commons is shared domain by its nature, not ‘agreeing’ to share, and is limited to things in public ownership, or elements owned by nobody, like the atmosphere or large rivers. It is not everyone’s property, like their farms. This form of commons requires agreed rules on how to deal with disputes and stop problems. Its a legal issue.
Sharing property in general is quite a different argument. Killian may have a good point on that worth debating, but attempts to get rid of private property in general have not had encouraging results.
For myself I think we are too evolved now to go back to communal types of ownership, and have to accept paradigm of private ownership as basic rule. However you can certainly have some public ownership where market doesn’t work too well and workers owned cooperatives, which is just a form of share ownership at the end of the day. This is the basic western european mixed ownership model.
Radical redesigns are dangerous, and wont be possible politically in time to fix the climate problem. Like someone said ‘principles’ have to be thought about in terms of whats plausible and politically possible. They also have to be measured against quantification of issues so we know whether we need radical (and risky) society scale changes, or more fast evolution / modification of existing institutions, which is my personal preference unless someone has compelling case for radical change.
Re #207, Mr. KIA: the situation is sadly different in our community (Northern VA). None of the huge houses in our affluent area have any solar panels, although the owners seem to have vast sums to spend on cars, on landscaping that replaced well forested land and the houses themselves, generally costing in the 2 to 6 M$ range. One recent new home did have geothermal, like our home, one of the last to take advantage of the now expired 30% tax credit. Ours is the second oldest and smallest remaining in the subdivision, two comparable houses having been bulldozed and most of the trees removed to make room for “McMansions.” We have retrofitted with geothermal, all the solar panels our roof could accommodate and two electric vehicles, but I see no evidence of any of these technologies in any homes within many miles! We do have small remaining electricity bills in the coldest 3 months.
nigeljsays
Steven Sullivan @210
“None of the national discussion in the USA about climate change is going to be driven by the tedious, petty internecine debates you guys are having here. It’s going to be driven by the right-wing ideologue strategies and tactics exposed in Joe Bast’s email, that Russell linked to up there. READ IT.”
Thank’s for the link. Discussion here is wide ranging, as it properly should be. If it’s of no interest to you, go away. Some disagreement is healthy, and the last hing we want is an image of being a website of “yes men” who agree on everything.
Yes the wider national discussion is certainly at risk of being captured by right wing ideology. I would suggest of the more extreme kind, and don’t wish to imply everyone who leans right is a climate denialist.
I had a read of your link. Your link has the usual collection of climate change denialist nonsense, so much of it misleading, plus a few new tricks. Virtually everyone on this website has been reading much the same stuff for years now. It’s not as if we are unaware, and not concerned.
The climate science community and people worried about climate change in general can only warn people of the problem, as is done to high standard in IPCC reports. We cannot force idiots to see the problem.They can only convince the middle ground people, and this can only be done with calm reasoned, fact based argument.
If climate scientists loose their cool, its game over, although I would suggest climate science community could be more urgent in rhetoric at times, and call out some of these sceptics as talking idiocy. But you have to be careful not to get too emotive, or over do this.
If you have a better strategy I’m all ears.
The “CO2 is plantfood” statement is one of those annoying, disarming things devised by clever, devious, marketing type of person. There are already retorts to this, and the facts are that greening effect comes up against limits, and higher temperatures eventually reduce crop productivity. This of course gets “wordy”, but you can abbreviate it to saying too much of anything has serious downsides, and go into detail from there as required by the circumstances.
So much of this climate thing is driven by politics and ideology. Most countries have the brains to accept compromise, and middle ground, and some shared policies. America is going in the other direction into an ideological war zone, with a political right wing currently in the White House and Congress and Senate plus various so called ‘institutes’ that are very irrational and entrenched in their world view, and in total denial about several things. How the hell do you expect us to fix that?
Killiansays
#202 Kevin McKinney said Killian: “Looking at you, Kevin McKinney. You’re right that you can’t do simplicity as long as you choose to give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s rather than create what Ceasar cannot.”
Fine. As I said, I’m all ears for practical solutions I (and others) can implement now.
Everything I talk about already is in existence. Scale takes time, wider awareness, but it is already present. All of it. It is all practical. That is the very nature of permaculture and regenerative practices. It is all doable: It is being done.
Also for ones that might have a chance for implementation at scale in the nearish future–say the next couple of decades.
Only thing stopping you is you. You are afraid to, so you don’t. Letting go is key. Opt out. It will all be, and is now, non-linear. Early adopters will suffer most, but somebody must begin. Create a neighborhood organization. Share. Perhaps a Land Trust. Throw it all in one pot. Just do it. Be prepared to stand against hte police, banks, etc., if they come to foreclose. It must be this way.
I like the your first principles in many ways. But I feel like we’re long overdue for some “reasoning from there.”
Yes, most are overdue. Not all.
Stop waiting for Superman; he’s never coming.
Nemesissays
@Mr KIA, #212
” Thus, the wealthier folks seemed to have a smaller footprint.”
Oh, that’s good news, as most people on the planet are pretty wealthy, so they can afford renewable energy easily. Yes, we are on a wonderful way. I love capitalism :)
Thomassays
BPL: But it’s the US that is the “global bully.”
Yeah. You got it! Finally. :-)
Remember Kyoto?
All those between Kyoto and Copenhagen?
Remember who has pulled out of that?
That’s the tip of the iceberg as far as climate science agw climate change belligerance and bullying is concerned for decades.
then there’s all the other topics one could easily muster up as never-ending examples.
But who cares when Whataboutery is so much more eclectic debating fun, right? ;-)
Thomassays
People are asking was KIA casing the wealthy neighbourhood on his pushy?
I think every nation should ignore the “laggard” on every subject.
“I have a dream …” MLK :-)
Thomassays
195 MA Rodger, according to the ‘data’ the last 4 years 2017, 2016, 2015 and 2014 are the four warmest years “on record” and also have the distinction of being the highest global records for CO2/CO2e levels in the atmosphere (and oceans) for many millions of years.
So much for that “pause” and world getting cooler or emissions being reduced or sittin’ under +2C on pre-industrial levels. hehehe.
Mr. Know It Allsays
207 – Hank R
Hank, that’s awful about Trump destroying that satellite, but I have good news about it. Mans ability to monitor polar ice has not been harmed. You can enjoy your Thanksgiving dinner after all. Read on:
In addition to Mike’s regular CO2 readings, I have found another indicator of the seriousness of global warming – sea level. You can monitor it at this website. When the white sand disappears, start worrying: (daylight at this indicator site is 12 hours ahead of the Pacific Time Zone – west coast of the USA).
You seem to believe that you have proposed some counterargument to my proposition (“Zebra’s Hypothesis”, in the future) that a declining population produces a non-linear benefit in reducing CO2 and other environmental insults. And you also claim others have as well.
But I don’t recall any such. I think you once said that NZ had environmental issues, but NZ has a growing population as far as I know. And NZ illustrates one of the fundamental components of my argument– which is that people tend to choose to concentrate geographically. You have lots of land relative to the population (so far), but something like 3/4 of the people live in one city, correct?
So, I don’t know how you justify your disagreement. If you think the effect of ZH is small, please explain why. I go by obvious data, like the difference in per-capita energy consumption between the US and Europe. An obvious contribution to that is the higher density.
I’m talking about what we observe in economic (in the broad sense) behavior. What are you talking about?
As for morality, ethics, and so on: Please, this has been discussed to death by real philosophers– it is a meaningless concept because different groups of people can hold diametrically opposed opinions about “what is moral”.
Adam Leasays
212: If you want to work out someones carbon footprint, look at their ENTIRE lifestyle, not just cherry-pick one small aspect which supports your agenda. There is way more to a domestic carbon footprint than the electricity consumption. Wealthy people tend to live in larger homes, which require more energy to heat, contain more consumer goods which, as well as the embodied carbon footprint, consume more power. Wealthy people tend to drive large inefficient cars, fly abroad multiple times for holidays, buy and consume more stuff. All that is not compensated by a few solar panels.
Mal Adaptedsays
Ray Ladbury, to Mr. Ironically Anosognosic Typist:
Dude, I’m glad you aren’t on our side.
Heh. One hypothesis is that IAT is flying a false flag. His hyperbolically ridiculous AGW-denialism is plausibly a deliberate caricature, intended to expose all AGW-deniers to yet more scorn and derision.
OTOH, he may be a genuine determined AGW-denier, enlisted in a fantasy culture war like so many others. Having taken a risible stand on the freedom to socialize his private climate-change costs, he’s brought his foolish fight to his imagined enemies. It’s no matter to him that the only weapons he has to fight with are ridiculous undead AGW-denialist memes, ineffectual though they are in the RC arena. Toujours de l’audace!
A well-crafted poe can never be confirmed one way or the other.
Nemesissays
@Thomas, #224
” So much for that “pause” and world getting cooler or emissions being reduced or sittin’ under +2C on pre-industrial levels. hehehe.”
You think that’s funny?! I think it sucks, in a way, harr harr 8)
nigeljsays
zebra @227
Firstly if you ever feel inclined to vist NZ or move here, come vist! We could have interesting discussion.
“You seem to believe that you have proposed some counterargument to my proposition (“Zebra’s Hypothesis”, in the future) that a declining population produces a non-linear benefit in reducing CO2 and other environmental insults. And you also claim others have as well.”
I never claimed this. I agree its plausible theory, (I’m going on instinct here plus thinking about it) but the effect would be weak at best. I have said this about three frigging times Zebra.
I gave you numerous reasons and examples maybe you didn’t see the post, and I’m not going to go over it all again, and try to trawl back and find it.
But for example you claimed something about very small populations clustering near renewable energy resources simply because its small population. I just don’t see why this would necessarily happen. But maybe lets just agree to disagree if you want, I don’t want bad feeling over the issue, there’s enough internet wars already.
But the fact numerous other people have made criticisms of same issue tells me Im not imagining things.
” I think you once said that NZ had environmental issues, but NZ has a growing population as far as I know. And NZ illustrates one of the fundamental components of my argument– which is that people tend to choose to concentrate geographically. You have lots of land relative to the population (so far), but something like 3/4 of the people live in one city, correct?”
The population is only growing slightly relatively speaking, but surely total size and density is what your theory is really about? I fail to see how a change would do anything just because its a change. And as I said, we have numerous environmental problems despite small population and low density. You are right population is somewhat concentrated in Auckland about 25%, so is similar to your ideal model, but this still hasn’t lead to a pristine environment free of problems, which undermines your theory.
I know NZ is only one country so is possibly an anomaly, and we have environmental successes as well as problems. You should look at a range of countries and see if there’s some obvious correlation between population size / density and environmental problems. Surely that’s the test to do? My instinct says you are right but will be weak effect.
“I go by obvious data, like the difference in per-capita energy consumption between the US and Europe. An obvious contribution to that is the higher density.”
Hang on higher density in Europe may be a factor, but Europe is also a colder climate and has stricter energy efficiency rules, and different technologies. And I’m not sure any of this is a function of population density, and its more likely cultural differences
“As for morality, ethics, and so on: Please, this has been discussed to death by real philosophers– it is a meaningless concept because different groups of people can hold diametrically opposed opinions about “what is moral”.
It sure has been discussed to death. I have read some philosophy on morality including Kant, Mill, and Ayn Rand and most of this is meaningless goobledegook going around in circles and superficial assertions. The most sensible thing I have read on morality is some of Mills work, and Aristotles ethics, which is both mercifully short and clear and grounded in the real world and rational approach.
Mill also developed and excellent view on Morality that we should be free to do as we wish in life, provided it is not hurting other people (I’m simplifying his views) and this at least makes some rational sense, rather than being an arbitrary definition of right and wrong.
People do hold very opposed views on morality, but is that a valid reason to abandon any attempt to define morality? That seems like a cop out to me.
Look even evolutionary and biological sciences find evidence of ethical and moral looking behaviour’s in animals so these things are real and deep seated. We might argue to death about abortion and homosexuality etc, but the vast majority believe that murder and theft is wrong, based on reason and conscience, and our entire legal system is built on this. Are you seriously saying this form or morality counts for nothing? What is left, a giant void?
I think morality has some sort of survival value and gives society stability. Where we get into murky areas is abortion, and even there most people don’t like abortion (myself included), its more possibly a necessary evil because making it illegal drives it underground. Homosexuality is tied in with religion. But the point is people agree on many other basic moral virtues, so maybe you are too dismissive.
And regarding climate issue, we are potentially leaving future generations a degraded planet. Thus our behaviour’s now are hurting future generations. Surely this is partly an ethical issue?
nigeljsays
Zebra @227, just on Europe compared to America I want to clarify what I said above. Climate is unlikely to be the factor.
So just to be clear, according to your theory, the USA with lower population density than Europe, should consume less energy per capita. You have said country with smaller population per unit area, makes more sensible environmental choices.
But the US has higher energy consumption per capita than most of Europe. This is opposite to your theory. One issue is US has poor energy efficiency laws, and higher incomes overall so more energy use.
nigeljsays
Killian @219
“Create a neighborhood organization. Share. Perhaps a Land Trust. Throw it all in one pot. Just do it. Be prepared to stand against hte police, banks, etc., if they come to foreclose. It must be this way.”
I assume you already do this, and also live in very small house with no cars, television, computers,….etc?
Killiansays
#215 nigelj said Killian @206 “A Commons is nothing more than agreeing to share and how to do so.”
I disagree. This is where I get frustrated. The idea of a commons has quite different meaning to what Killian says, and has a specific ***economic*** definition.
Indeed. You exactly make my point out of pure ignorance. And inability to comprehend what you read. I specifically stated “First Principles.” Clearly, to a competent reader, this means the crap you consider a definition is… crap. It is, as you adroitly managed to step in it by saying so, economics. Except, no, it isn’t. The twisting of something that existed without definition, or need of one, for hundreds of thousands of years before economists got their nasty little hands on it into a complex morass of stupidity is exactly the sort of thing that keeps people like you embedded in this pile of dung.
Meanwhile, people that have always lived in a Commons exist, and have done so for millennia… as all our ancestors did at one point.
Please stop redefining things away form simple dictionary definitions, it makes discussion frigging impossible.
The redefinition is by economists, not by me. You can learn to think using First Principles, or you can be a peon. Up to you. Just don’t ask Elon Musk for a job.
Oxford:
By the way, uh, I win: land or resources belonging to or affecting the whole of a community.
Merriam-Webster:
belonging to or shared by two or more individuals or things or by all members of a group
Ostrom:
8 Principles for Managing a Commons
1. Define clear group boundaries.
2. Match rules governing use of common goods to local needs and conditions.
3. Ensure that those affected by the rules can participate in modifying the rules.
4. Make sure the rule-making rights of community members are respected by outside authorities.
5. Develop a system, carried out by community members, for monitoring members’ behavior.
6. Use graduated sanctions for rule violators.
7. Provide accessible, low-cost means for dispute resolution.
8. Build responsibility for governing the common resource in nested tiers from the lowest level up to the entire interconnected system.
You’ll notice Ostrom’s rules fir within my three statements, and that her eighth is exactly like my tiered Regenerative Governance model you think has no merit.
Killiansays
Part II:
#215 nigelj said Killian @206 “A Commons is nothing more than agreeing to share and how to do so.”
I disagree…
A commons is shared domain by its nature, not ‘agreeing’ to share
That’s my point, not yours. Your point follows. My point is, exactly, the Commons exists, period, but people must still agree to that or you get TotC, aka current society.
and is limited to things in public ownership, or elements owned by nobody, like the atmosphere or large rivers. It is not everyone’s property, like their farms.
False. That is your problem here, you don’t understand the Commons. Ownership is the aberration, not sharing. “Their” is a concept that will not continue to exist in a regenerative world because it can’t. H-G’s shared as a survival technique. Our mistake was in thinking it was optional. The results of making it optional are facing overshoot, collapse, extinction.
What you mean is Commons are defined narrowly *now.* But why continue with suicidal behaviors? The only truly regenerative communities now are Commonses.
This form of commons requires agreed rules on how to deal with disputes and stop problems. Its a legal issue.
It’s legal for you. It need not be. When risk is shared and fully understood by all, there should be no need of external law. Even if it is used, you still begin with an agreement among people. Rules, as I said. Settling disputes inside or outsidethe Commons is a rule, a choice, not a universal requirement.
Sharing property in general is quite a different argument.
No. A commons is a commons. They are always limited in some sense. E.g., why should a Russian farmer near Moscow have anything to say about the watering schedule for a farm in Iowa? We must be realistic, no? As Ostrom says, scale. My RG concept uses scale-based problem solving. Not authority, not power, not jurisdiction, but scale. Only scale and only the areas and people affected.
Killian may have a good point on that worth debating, but attempts to get rid of private property in general have not had encouraging results.
So? Logical fallacy: It’s been difficult, so we can’t? Meh.
For myself I think we are too evolved now to go back to communal types of ownership
[Insert bulging eyes here.] Is that like being too fat for dieting? Too big to fail?
and have to accept paradigm of private ownership as basic rule.
You offer zero support for this assertion. it is, so must always be? Not a logical or rational argument. Try this: That is killing us, so let’s stop doing that.
However you can certainly have some public ownership where market doesn’t work too well
There is nowhere where “market” works. there is no market that is not destroying the planet.
wont be possible politically in time to fix the climate problem.
Crystal ball again.
Like someone said ‘principles’ have to be thought about in terms of whats plausible and politically possible. They also have to be measured against quantification of issues so we know whether we need radical (and risky) society scale changes, or more fast evolution / modification of existing institutions, which is my personal preference unless someone has compelling case for radical change.
Nowhere above are you discussing principles, so what are you referring to?
Measured against quantification of issues? Word salad.
…unless someone has a compelling case for [sane] change? Yeah. Like I’ve said, you’re a stealth denier or way beyond your depth. The only people who want a system to continue even after it is absolutely certain it is destroying everything are those most deeply embedded. If you cannot see how close we are to full systemic collapse, you are blinding yourself to reality. That’s ideology.
Mr. Know It Allsays
218 – nigelj
” America is going in the other direction into an ideological war zone, with a political right wing currently in the White House and Congress and Senate plus various so called ‘institutes’ that are very irrational and entrenched in their world view, and in total denial about several things. How the hell do you expect us to fix that?”
Well, there is a lot you can do. First, ignore those people – they make up only 2.5% of the world population – they are of no consequence in the AGW game.
If you’re willing to do something about AGW, get a bike, an electric bike if you’re not in shape or are lazy, in the winter turn down the thermostat to 60 degrees, in the summer turn it up, put a 1/4 turn inline valve on your shower head to reduce the water flow to the bare minimum, open south facing blinds in winter to gather solar heat, avoid using cars as much as you can, turn off lights when no one is in the room, get more efficient appliances, see if you can add some solar PV panels to your roof, perhaps solar thermal panels for water heating, etc, etc. If all the believers will do their part that will accomplish more than any climate agreement.
And, don’t despair over the federal government of the USA – many state governments are implementing AGW policies on their own.
Hi, just to give a perspective from East Africa, there is a collaboration
with The University of Nairobi Institute for Climate Change and Adaptation on the outreach of a film called “Thank you for the Rain”. The Film will be Launched on the 29th of November in Nairobi at the French Cultural Center (for those of you who will be in Nairobi at the time) and all are welcome.The Film is about: Kisilu Musya, a smallholder farmer in Kenya Kitui, who for the last five
years has used his camera to capture the life of his family, his village
and the impacts of climate change. He has filmed floods, droughts. He takes his message all the way to the UN
Climate Talks, in Paris, COP21. Here, amid the murky cut and thrust of
politics at the biggest environmental show on earth, Kisilu and Norwegian
filmmaker Julia Dahr’s perspective takes on a remarkable twist, shedding a
powerful light on the climate justice movement and the vastly different
worlds they represent.*
*Watch the trailer:* http://thankyoufortherain.com/trailer
Hi, just to give a perspective from East Africa, there is a collaboration
with The University of Nairobi Institute for Climate Change and Adaptation on the outreach of a film called “Thank you for the Rain”. The Film will be launched on the 29th of November in Nairobi at the French Cultural Center (for those of you who will be in Nairobi at the time) and all are welcome.The Film is about: Kisilu Musya, a smallholder farmer in Kenya Kitui, who for the last five
years has used his camera to capture the life of his family, his village
and the impacts of climate change. He takes his message all the way to the UN
Climate Talks, in Paris, COP21. Here, amid the murky cut and thrust of
politics at the biggest environmental show on earth, Kisilu and Norwegian
filmmaker Julia Dahr’s perspective takes on a remarkable twist, shedding a
powerful light on the climate justice movement and the vastly different
worlds they represent.*
*Watch the trailer:* http://thankyoufortherain.com/trailer
October monthly CO2 increase 2.07 ppm
wrong way, too fast
Turkey Day!
Mike
zebrasays
nigel 232,
OK, I see you’ve got it completely backwards. But I don’t think you can blame me for this– I provided examples, and even the reference you gave earlier supported what I am saying.
1. Higher density = less pollution.
2. The US has lower density.
You are obviously confusing “the forest and the trees” here.
If you have two big cities, that is less polluting than having the total population spread over ten cities, because you have to move products and people and energy among those cities.
Ten cities is more efficient than 20 cities, and 20 cities is more efficient than 40 towns, and 40 towns is more efficient than 80 villages.
If you don’t get this stuff, please just ask for clarification– lots of effort has been wasted here, “disagreeing” about the wrong thing.
In the US, Europe, and even New Zealand, the distribution of population is based on the geographical conditions that influenced decisions in the past— cities develop for a reason, like a harbor, or location on a rail line or a river, or because it is militarily defensible, and so on. Also, because it has access to a prime source of energy like hydro.
As the population declines, the less desirable locations will be abandoned. We observe this even with the US population that is still growing, as young people leave the smaller towns to seek opportunity in more densely populated locations.
Ray Ladburysays
Mr. KIA: ” First, ignore those people – they make up only 2.5% of the world population – they are of no consequence in the AGW game.”
Jesus wept! Are you really that dim? That 2.5% of the population consumes over 20% of the resources of the planet! What is more, the US economy is designed to maximize consumption rather than minimize it. What the US should be doing is leading the way in developing technologies and infrastructure that minimize the strain on the planet–but as the Black Friday idiocy demonstrates, we are doing the opposite.
” America is going in the other direction into an ideological war zone, with a political right wing currently in the White House and Congress and Senate plus various so called ‘institutes’ that are very irrational and entrenched in their world view, and in total denial about several things. How the hell do you expect us to fix that?”
Well, there is a lot you can do. First, ignore those people – they make up only 2.5% of the world population – they are of no consequence in the AGW game.
His odd arithmetic aside, Mr. IAT comfirms he is wholly oblivious of The Tragedy of the Commons. AGW may be said to be a cost of his tragically ordinary anosognosia in aggregate.
Well the right wing in America may only make up 2.5% of global population, but their emissions will be well above the global average and they have a significant and unfortunate effect on climate policy as a whole. Thomas has vented his frustration with American attitudes as a whole and there’s an element of truth, and for me its sad when a global leader like America goes so wrong, this is frustrating because leaders are important in this climate issue. We cannot ignore them but its hard persuading ideologically driven willful idiots.
And climate policy is important to push renewable energy and get electric car recharging stations going. The free market is good economics often, but is very painfully slow to promote these sorts of things.
Yes there are things we can personally do and I have no argument with your various suggestions. Except get an electric bike? No not my thing, biking, but I own a very fuel efficient low emissions petrol car, and will soon be buying an electric car, probably the Nissan leaf or the new middle range tesla, and just last week I replaced all my light bulbs (which are getting old) with led bulbs, which use about half the power of compact fluorescent’s, and don’t have the mercury problem, and also give nice instant light where the fluorescent’s take a while to get going.
New stuff often has a range of surprise advantages like this, and I think we will find this with many things like electric cars, and renewable energy for example. Although some new technology seems waste of time, I wont be spending money on face recognition smartphones, just an expensive toy.
patricksays
@235 Rosemary Barasa: Thanks for the trailer to the award-winning film, “Thank You for the Rain.” A transcendent selfie, so to speak. Great leadership.
@Killian, #200
” The current paradigm is broken and suicidal”
I preach that for 30 years now, no chance to be heard :’D
Killian: “Looking at you, Kevin McKinney. You’re right that you can’t do simplicity as long as you choose to give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s rather than create what Ceasar cannot.”
Fine. As I said, I’m all ears for practical solutions I (and others) can implement now. Also for ones that might have a chance for implementation at scale in the nearish future–say the next couple of decades.
I like the your first principles in many ways. But I feel like we’re long overdue for some “reasoning from there.”
zebra @194
“About me being “wrong”: Whether you or Killian, pronouncements and assertions without the support of evidence or reason are useless “.
killian, Mal Adapted and myself have all criticised some of your comments and provided plenty of evidence and reason. You are in denial Zebra and counter with wild claims and change the subject! Please dont take that as attack on your general philosophy, with which I have some agreement.
Your thought experiment on ten million people all living in one city, and making different environmental choices to large population. Very thought provoking and best comment I seen on the internet all that week by far. But when I do same thought experiment, I’m not sure people would make the sorts of choices you claim, and that circumstances would be as you described, and I explained some reasons why. I think my reasons were valid and you never explained why you think otherwise! My own view is the effects you claim are real, but probably rather weaker than you think, that’s all. I may be wrong but you need to tell me why I would be wrong.
“I don’t mean this in a personally angry or condescending way, but you live on some paradise-type island that some see as the ultimate haven from the apocalypse, and you’re telling me:The Republicans in America are just going to have to accept this.”
They do. Its as simple as that. We need to seriously figure out how to persuade them better, its our only hope. (This is not incompatible with your own ideas on science / engineering approach to debate, we need that as well).
“Come visit, nigel, and you can look at my neighbor’s Trump signs that are still up…..”
Yes I get all that. Its astonishing and incredible, but we have to find a solution somehow. The same people will be resistant to your ideas of less population.
“So pardon me if I am a bit cynical and pessimistic about humanity and its monkey-nature, and see wishful thinking about what “we can do” as a waste of time.”
Yes understood, I feel exactly the same at times, believe me, its tempting to be very cynical, but sometimes all we have is hope. And its human to discuss what we should do and eventually good comes from it. And we need to discuss right thing to do sometimes. Ethical businesses are emerging, and young people are expecting better of businesses, and better environment and I think its something more than just idealism. So you see moral side is significant at some level as long as its intelligent understanding of morality and not too emotive and monkey natured. Maybe I’m just a hopeless idealist.
Th 190 accuses the US of: ” Money aka Power based upon fossil fuels and nuclear energy and bombs and non-stop belligerence aka global bullying in manifold forms ”
BPL: Let me see… Soviet Union v2.0 has invaded four countries and has just deployed the “Satan II” missile, which has ten warheads, each 40 megatons. Enough to wipe out France or Britain or Texas. SU2 has also interfered in elections in the US and across Europe. As for fossil fuels, SU2 signed a $500 billion dollar agreement with Exxon-Mobil to drill the Arctic, and actually has a vested interest in global warming, as (in their reckoning) they will be one of the few winners from a melting Arctic. But it’s the US that is the “global bully.”
Let’s all sing “The Old Red Flag.”
K: Ceasar
BPL: “Caesar”
#194 zebra said Dude, read the freakin’ Wikipedia article on TOC! It’s a complicated concept; people with expertise don’t all agree on it. Just using the phrase in a rhetorical way because it sounds good isn’t helpful.
I like Wiki. I use Wiki. But Wiki is current paradigm. Wiki, nor any other arrogant fool, invented Commons: They were the default setting until between 11k years ago and, for most, only 4k years ago, and for a very few, now.
They disagree because they choose to remain arrogantly ignorant. A Commons is nothing more than agreeing to share and how to do so. There is no secret handshake, no tablets on a mountain. They need agreement and rules. Both are bounded by the awareness of the *need* for them. Beyond the need, all is mere details. The keys are those three: Awareness of having no choice, choosing to share, making rules.
First Principles.
Everything belongs to everyone. Act like it.
Hat tip to Soylent News for this:
DFrog @188
You attack Germany and Merkel in particular for use of coal power. Some perspective Sir:
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/france-germany-turn-coal/
“Germany is replacing its nuclear units with renewable energy (wind and solar) as part of its energy transition, the so-called Energiewende. It is using mainly coal to back-up its intermittent renewable energy and as a result, it has increased its coal-fired generation.”
Perhaps you need to consider wider context before rushing to quite such harsh judgement.
Would ‘the same thinking’ problem include argumentative namecalling as a tactic?
None of the national discussion in the USA about climate change is going to be driven by the tedious, petty internecine debates you guys are having here. It’s going to be driven by the right-wing ideologue strategies and tactics exposed in Joe Bast’s email, that Russell linked to up there. READ IT.
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/10/will-real-troglodyte-please-stand-up.html
Because of receding horizons, even some of these collapsed populations are likely underestimated. On eco collapse, Wiki says:
I think we are there. Read on:
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2017/11/16/humans-blind-imminent-environmental-collapse/
If so, at what point do most here get their come-to-Jesus moment and embrace the only solution for overshoot, and diminishibg returns on comolexity, simplicity?
Some comments above seemed to indicate that rich folks in large houses had a larger carbon footprint than po’ folks in smaller homes. I was cycling this past weekend and I noticed that some of the large homes in more wealthy housing developments had large solar arrays on their roofs. Some were so large that they’d probably be net zero at least on electricity. The smaller homes I saw had few PV panels because the roofs were too small to bother with. Thus, the wealthier folks seemed to have a smaller footprint. Some of those arrays looked large enough to charge an electric vehicle in addition to running the house and dumping the excess into the grid.
#207, KIA–
You seem to be forgetting (or unaware of) the fact that all goods have an embodied carbon footprint. So putting solar panels on a roof is far from the end-all-and-be-all of carbon footprint reduction, though it may be a helpful step. There is a correlation between consumption and carbon emissions.
It is true, of course, that generalizations–such as ‘all rich folks are x’–are dangerous.
In general.
Mr. Know It All again demonstrates the profound irony of his name: “Thus, the wealthier folks seemed to have a smaller footprint.”
As if electricity were the only–or even the major contributor to one’s carbon footprint. Dude, I’m glad you aren’t on our side.
Killian @206 “A Commons is nothing more than agreeing to share and how to do so.”
I disagree. This is where I get frustrated. The idea of a commons has quite different meaning to what Killian says, and has a specific economic definition. Please stop redefining things away form simple dictionary definitions, it makes discussion frigging impossible.
A commons is shared domain by its nature, not ‘agreeing’ to share, and is limited to things in public ownership, or elements owned by nobody, like the atmosphere or large rivers. It is not everyone’s property, like their farms. This form of commons requires agreed rules on how to deal with disputes and stop problems. Its a legal issue.
Sharing property in general is quite a different argument. Killian may have a good point on that worth debating, but attempts to get rid of private property in general have not had encouraging results.
For myself I think we are too evolved now to go back to communal types of ownership, and have to accept paradigm of private ownership as basic rule. However you can certainly have some public ownership where market doesn’t work too well and workers owned cooperatives, which is just a form of share ownership at the end of the day. This is the basic western european mixed ownership model.
Radical redesigns are dangerous, and wont be possible politically in time to fix the climate problem. Like someone said ‘principles’ have to be thought about in terms of whats plausible and politically possible. They also have to be measured against quantification of issues so we know whether we need radical (and risky) society scale changes, or more fast evolution / modification of existing institutions, which is my personal preference unless someone has compelling case for radical change.
Experts: Permafrost + Gas Hydrates in Arctic, Greenland SLR, Security https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKBUsbFQk6I
Re #207, Mr. KIA: the situation is sadly different in our community (Northern VA). None of the huge houses in our affluent area have any solar panels, although the owners seem to have vast sums to spend on cars, on landscaping that replaced well forested land and the houses themselves, generally costing in the 2 to 6 M$ range. One recent new home did have geothermal, like our home, one of the last to take advantage of the now expired 30% tax credit. Ours is the second oldest and smallest remaining in the subdivision, two comparable houses having been bulldozed and most of the trees removed to make room for “McMansions.” We have retrofitted with geothermal, all the solar panels our roof could accommodate and two electric vehicles, but I see no evidence of any of these technologies in any homes within many miles! We do have small remaining electricity bills in the coldest 3 months.
Steven Sullivan @210
“None of the national discussion in the USA about climate change is going to be driven by the tedious, petty internecine debates you guys are having here. It’s going to be driven by the right-wing ideologue strategies and tactics exposed in Joe Bast’s email, that Russell linked to up there. READ IT.”
Thank’s for the link. Discussion here is wide ranging, as it properly should be. If it’s of no interest to you, go away. Some disagreement is healthy, and the last hing we want is an image of being a website of “yes men” who agree on everything.
Yes the wider national discussion is certainly at risk of being captured by right wing ideology. I would suggest of the more extreme kind, and don’t wish to imply everyone who leans right is a climate denialist.
I had a read of your link. Your link has the usual collection of climate change denialist nonsense, so much of it misleading, plus a few new tricks. Virtually everyone on this website has been reading much the same stuff for years now. It’s not as if we are unaware, and not concerned.
The climate science community and people worried about climate change in general can only warn people of the problem, as is done to high standard in IPCC reports. We cannot force idiots to see the problem.They can only convince the middle ground people, and this can only be done with calm reasoned, fact based argument.
If climate scientists loose their cool, its game over, although I would suggest climate science community could be more urgent in rhetoric at times, and call out some of these sceptics as talking idiocy. But you have to be careful not to get too emotive, or over do this.
If you have a better strategy I’m all ears.
The “CO2 is plantfood” statement is one of those annoying, disarming things devised by clever, devious, marketing type of person. There are already retorts to this, and the facts are that greening effect comes up against limits, and higher temperatures eventually reduce crop productivity. This of course gets “wordy”, but you can abbreviate it to saying too much of anything has serious downsides, and go into detail from there as required by the circumstances.
So much of this climate thing is driven by politics and ideology. Most countries have the brains to accept compromise, and middle ground, and some shared policies. America is going in the other direction into an ideological war zone, with a political right wing currently in the White House and Congress and Senate plus various so called ‘institutes’ that are very irrational and entrenched in their world view, and in total denial about several things. How the hell do you expect us to fix that?
#202 Kevin McKinney said Killian: “Looking at you, Kevin McKinney. You’re right that you can’t do simplicity as long as you choose to give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s rather than create what Ceasar cannot.”
Fine. As I said, I’m all ears for practical solutions I (and others) can implement now.
Everything I talk about already is in existence. Scale takes time, wider awareness, but it is already present. All of it. It is all practical. That is the very nature of permaculture and regenerative practices. It is all doable: It is being done.
Also for ones that might have a chance for implementation at scale in the nearish future–say the next couple of decades.
Only thing stopping you is you. You are afraid to, so you don’t. Letting go is key. Opt out. It will all be, and is now, non-linear. Early adopters will suffer most, but somebody must begin. Create a neighborhood organization. Share. Perhaps a Land Trust. Throw it all in one pot. Just do it. Be prepared to stand against hte police, banks, etc., if they come to foreclose. It must be this way.
I like the your first principles in many ways. But I feel like we’re long overdue for some “reasoning from there.”
Yes, most are overdue. Not all.
Stop waiting for Superman; he’s never coming.
@Mr KIA, #212
” Thus, the wealthier folks seemed to have a smaller footprint.”
Oh, that’s good news, as most people on the planet are pretty wealthy, so they can afford renewable energy easily. Yes, we are on a wonderful way. I love capitalism :)
BPL: But it’s the US that is the “global bully.”
Yeah. You got it! Finally. :-)
Remember Kyoto?
All those between Kyoto and Copenhagen?
Remember who has pulled out of that?
That’s the tip of the iceberg as far as climate science agw climate change belligerance and bullying is concerned for decades.
then there’s all the other topics one could easily muster up as never-ending examples.
But who cares when Whataboutery is so much more eclectic debating fun, right? ;-)
People are asking was KIA casing the wealthy neighbourhood on his pushy?
BPL please note “laggard” in https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/11/unforced-variations-nov-2017/comment-page-4/#comment-686688
I think every nation should ignore the “laggard” on every subject.
“I have a dream …” MLK :-)
195 MA Rodger, according to the ‘data’ the last 4 years 2017, 2016, 2015 and 2014 are the four warmest years “on record” and also have the distinction of being the highest global records for CO2/CO2e levels in the atmosphere (and oceans) for many millions of years.
So much for that “pause” and world getting cooler or emissions being reduced or sittin’ under +2C on pre-industrial levels. hehehe.
207 – Hank R
Hank, that’s awful about Trump destroying that satellite, but I have good news about it. Mans ability to monitor polar ice has not been harmed. You can enjoy your Thanksgiving dinner after all. Read on:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/trump-wrongly-blamed-for-destroying-sea-ice-satellite/
In addition to Mike’s regular CO2 readings, I have found another indicator of the seriousness of global warming – sea level. You can monitor it at this website. When the white sand disappears, start worrying: (daylight at this indicator site is 12 hours ahead of the Pacific Time Zone – west coast of the USA).
https://www.skylinewebcams.com/en/webcam/maldives/lhaviyani-atoll/kurendhoo/maldives-kuredu.html
:)
Nigel 203,
You seem to believe that you have proposed some counterargument to my proposition (“Zebra’s Hypothesis”, in the future) that a declining population produces a non-linear benefit in reducing CO2 and other environmental insults. And you also claim others have as well.
But I don’t recall any such. I think you once said that NZ had environmental issues, but NZ has a growing population as far as I know. And NZ illustrates one of the fundamental components of my argument– which is that people tend to choose to concentrate geographically. You have lots of land relative to the population (so far), but something like 3/4 of the people live in one city, correct?
So, I don’t know how you justify your disagreement. If you think the effect of ZH is small, please explain why. I go by obvious data, like the difference in per-capita energy consumption between the US and Europe. An obvious contribution to that is the higher density.
I’m talking about what we observe in economic (in the broad sense) behavior. What are you talking about?
As for morality, ethics, and so on: Please, this has been discussed to death by real philosophers– it is a meaningless concept because different groups of people can hold diametrically opposed opinions about “what is moral”.
212: If you want to work out someones carbon footprint, look at their ENTIRE lifestyle, not just cherry-pick one small aspect which supports your agenda. There is way more to a domestic carbon footprint than the electricity consumption. Wealthy people tend to live in larger homes, which require more energy to heat, contain more consumer goods which, as well as the embodied carbon footprint, consume more power. Wealthy people tend to drive large inefficient cars, fly abroad multiple times for holidays, buy and consume more stuff. All that is not compensated by a few solar panels.
Ray Ladbury, to Mr. Ironically Anosognosic Typist:
Heh. One hypothesis is that IAT is flying a false flag. His hyperbolically ridiculous AGW-denialism is plausibly a deliberate caricature, intended to expose all AGW-deniers to yet more scorn and derision.
OTOH, he may be a genuine determined AGW-denier, enlisted in a fantasy culture war like so many others. Having taken a risible stand on the freedom to socialize his private climate-change costs, he’s brought his foolish fight to his imagined enemies. It’s no matter to him that the only weapons he has to fight with are ridiculous undead AGW-denialist memes, ineffectual though they are in the RC arena. Toujours de l’audace!
A well-crafted poe can never be confirmed one way or the other.
@Thomas, #224
” So much for that “pause” and world getting cooler or emissions being reduced or sittin’ under +2C on pre-industrial levels. hehehe.”
You think that’s funny?! I think it sucks, in a way, harr harr 8)
zebra @227
Firstly if you ever feel inclined to vist NZ or move here, come vist! We could have interesting discussion.
“You seem to believe that you have proposed some counterargument to my proposition (“Zebra’s Hypothesis”, in the future) that a declining population produces a non-linear benefit in reducing CO2 and other environmental insults. And you also claim others have as well.”
I never claimed this. I agree its plausible theory, (I’m going on instinct here plus thinking about it) but the effect would be weak at best. I have said this about three frigging times Zebra.
I gave you numerous reasons and examples maybe you didn’t see the post, and I’m not going to go over it all again, and try to trawl back and find it.
But for example you claimed something about very small populations clustering near renewable energy resources simply because its small population. I just don’t see why this would necessarily happen. But maybe lets just agree to disagree if you want, I don’t want bad feeling over the issue, there’s enough internet wars already.
But the fact numerous other people have made criticisms of same issue tells me Im not imagining things.
” I think you once said that NZ had environmental issues, but NZ has a growing population as far as I know. And NZ illustrates one of the fundamental components of my argument– which is that people tend to choose to concentrate geographically. You have lots of land relative to the population (so far), but something like 3/4 of the people live in one city, correct?”
The population is only growing slightly relatively speaking, but surely total size and density is what your theory is really about? I fail to see how a change would do anything just because its a change. And as I said, we have numerous environmental problems despite small population and low density. You are right population is somewhat concentrated in Auckland about 25%, so is similar to your ideal model, but this still hasn’t lead to a pristine environment free of problems, which undermines your theory.
I know NZ is only one country so is possibly an anomaly, and we have environmental successes as well as problems. You should look at a range of countries and see if there’s some obvious correlation between population size / density and environmental problems. Surely that’s the test to do? My instinct says you are right but will be weak effect.
“I go by obvious data, like the difference in per-capita energy consumption between the US and Europe. An obvious contribution to that is the higher density.”
Hang on higher density in Europe may be a factor, but Europe is also a colder climate and has stricter energy efficiency rules, and different technologies. And I’m not sure any of this is a function of population density, and its more likely cultural differences
“As for morality, ethics, and so on: Please, this has been discussed to death by real philosophers– it is a meaningless concept because different groups of people can hold diametrically opposed opinions about “what is moral”.
It sure has been discussed to death. I have read some philosophy on morality including Kant, Mill, and Ayn Rand and most of this is meaningless goobledegook going around in circles and superficial assertions. The most sensible thing I have read on morality is some of Mills work, and Aristotles ethics, which is both mercifully short and clear and grounded in the real world and rational approach.
Mill also developed and excellent view on Morality that we should be free to do as we wish in life, provided it is not hurting other people (I’m simplifying his views) and this at least makes some rational sense, rather than being an arbitrary definition of right and wrong.
People do hold very opposed views on morality, but is that a valid reason to abandon any attempt to define morality? That seems like a cop out to me.
Look even evolutionary and biological sciences find evidence of ethical and moral looking behaviour’s in animals so these things are real and deep seated. We might argue to death about abortion and homosexuality etc, but the vast majority believe that murder and theft is wrong, based on reason and conscience, and our entire legal system is built on this. Are you seriously saying this form or morality counts for nothing? What is left, a giant void?
I think morality has some sort of survival value and gives society stability. Where we get into murky areas is abortion, and even there most people don’t like abortion (myself included), its more possibly a necessary evil because making it illegal drives it underground. Homosexuality is tied in with religion. But the point is people agree on many other basic moral virtues, so maybe you are too dismissive.
And regarding climate issue, we are potentially leaving future generations a degraded planet. Thus our behaviour’s now are hurting future generations. Surely this is partly an ethical issue?
Zebra @227, just on Europe compared to America I want to clarify what I said above. Climate is unlikely to be the factor.
So just to be clear, according to your theory, the USA with lower population density than Europe, should consume less energy per capita. You have said country with smaller population per unit area, makes more sensible environmental choices.
But the US has higher energy consumption per capita than most of Europe. This is opposite to your theory. One issue is US has poor energy efficiency laws, and higher incomes overall so more energy use.
Killian @219
“Create a neighborhood organization. Share. Perhaps a Land Trust. Throw it all in one pot. Just do it. Be prepared to stand against hte police, banks, etc., if they come to foreclose. It must be this way.”
I assume you already do this, and also live in very small house with no cars, television, computers,….etc?
#215 nigelj said Killian @206 “A Commons is nothing more than agreeing to share and how to do so.”
I disagree. This is where I get frustrated. The idea of a commons has quite different meaning to what Killian says, and has a specific ***economic*** definition.
Indeed. You exactly make my point out of pure ignorance. And inability to comprehend what you read. I specifically stated “First Principles.” Clearly, to a competent reader, this means the crap you consider a definition is… crap. It is, as you adroitly managed to step in it by saying so, economics. Except, no, it isn’t. The twisting of something that existed without definition, or need of one, for hundreds of thousands of years before economists got their nasty little hands on it into a complex morass of stupidity is exactly the sort of thing that keeps people like you embedded in this pile of dung.
Meanwhile, people that have always lived in a Commons exist, and have done so for millennia… as all our ancestors did at one point.
Please stop redefining things away form simple dictionary definitions, it makes discussion frigging impossible.
The redefinition is by economists, not by me. You can learn to think using First Principles, or you can be a peon. Up to you. Just don’t ask Elon Musk for a job.
Oxford:
By the way, uh, I win: land or resources belonging to or affecting the whole of a community.
Merriam-Webster:
belonging to or shared by two or more individuals or things or by all members of a group
Ostrom:
8 Principles for Managing a Commons
1. Define clear group boundaries.
2. Match rules governing use of common goods to local needs and conditions.
3. Ensure that those affected by the rules can participate in modifying the rules.
4. Make sure the rule-making rights of community members are respected by outside authorities.
5. Develop a system, carried out by community members, for monitoring members’ behavior.
6. Use graduated sanctions for rule violators.
7. Provide accessible, low-cost means for dispute resolution.
8. Build responsibility for governing the common resource in nested tiers from the lowest level up to the entire interconnected system.
http://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/elinor-ostroms-8-principles-managing-commmons#sthash.kQ61KKky.dpbs
You’ll notice Ostrom’s rules fir within my three statements, and that her eighth is exactly like my tiered Regenerative Governance model you think has no merit.
Part II:
#215 nigelj said Killian @206 “A Commons is nothing more than agreeing to share and how to do so.”
I disagree…
A commons is shared domain by its nature, not ‘agreeing’ to share
That’s my point, not yours. Your point follows. My point is, exactly, the Commons exists, period, but people must still agree to that or you get TotC, aka current society.
and is limited to things in public ownership, or elements owned by nobody, like the atmosphere or large rivers. It is not everyone’s property, like their farms.
False. That is your problem here, you don’t understand the Commons. Ownership is the aberration, not sharing. “Their” is a concept that will not continue to exist in a regenerative world because it can’t. H-G’s shared as a survival technique. Our mistake was in thinking it was optional. The results of making it optional are facing overshoot, collapse, extinction.
What you mean is Commons are defined narrowly *now.* But why continue with suicidal behaviors? The only truly regenerative communities now are Commonses.
This form of commons requires agreed rules on how to deal with disputes and stop problems. Its a legal issue.
It’s legal for you. It need not be. When risk is shared and fully understood by all, there should be no need of external law. Even if it is used, you still begin with an agreement among people. Rules, as I said. Settling disputes inside or outsidethe Commons is a rule, a choice, not a universal requirement.
Sharing property in general is quite a different argument.
No. A commons is a commons. They are always limited in some sense. E.g., why should a Russian farmer near Moscow have anything to say about the watering schedule for a farm in Iowa? We must be realistic, no? As Ostrom says, scale. My RG concept uses scale-based problem solving. Not authority, not power, not jurisdiction, but scale. Only scale and only the areas and people affected.
Killian may have a good point on that worth debating, but attempts to get rid of private property in general have not had encouraging results.
So? Logical fallacy: It’s been difficult, so we can’t? Meh.
For myself I think we are too evolved now to go back to communal types of ownership
[Insert bulging eyes here.] Is that like being too fat for dieting? Too big to fail?
and have to accept paradigm of private ownership as basic rule.
You offer zero support for this assertion. it is, so must always be? Not a logical or rational argument. Try this: That is killing us, so let’s stop doing that.
However you can certainly have some public ownership where market doesn’t work too well
There is nowhere where “market” works. there is no market that is not destroying the planet.
Radical redesigns are dangerous
Representative democracy aka republics, for example? Market economies? Private ownership? Agreed.
wont be possible politically in time to fix the climate problem.
Crystal ball again.
Like someone said ‘principles’ have to be thought about in terms of whats plausible and politically possible. They also have to be measured against quantification of issues so we know whether we need radical (and risky) society scale changes, or more fast evolution / modification of existing institutions, which is my personal preference unless someone has compelling case for radical change.
Nowhere above are you discussing principles, so what are you referring to?
Measured against quantification of issues? Word salad.
…unless someone has a compelling case for [sane] change? Yeah. Like I’ve said, you’re a stealth denier or way beyond your depth. The only people who want a system to continue even after it is absolutely certain it is destroying everything are those most deeply embedded. If you cannot see how close we are to full systemic collapse, you are blinding yourself to reality. That’s ideology.
218 – nigelj
” America is going in the other direction into an ideological war zone, with a political right wing currently in the White House and Congress and Senate plus various so called ‘institutes’ that are very irrational and entrenched in their world view, and in total denial about several things. How the hell do you expect us to fix that?”
Well, there is a lot you can do. First, ignore those people – they make up only 2.5% of the world population – they are of no consequence in the AGW game.
If you’re willing to do something about AGW, get a bike, an electric bike if you’re not in shape or are lazy, in the winter turn down the thermostat to 60 degrees, in the summer turn it up, put a 1/4 turn inline valve on your shower head to reduce the water flow to the bare minimum, open south facing blinds in winter to gather solar heat, avoid using cars as much as you can, turn off lights when no one is in the room, get more efficient appliances, see if you can add some solar PV panels to your roof, perhaps solar thermal panels for water heating, etc, etc. If all the believers will do their part that will accomplish more than any climate agreement.
And, don’t despair over the federal government of the USA – many state governments are implementing AGW policies on their own.
Hi, just to give a perspective from East Africa, there is a collaboration
with The University of Nairobi Institute for Climate Change and Adaptation on the outreach of a film called “Thank you for the Rain”. The Film will be Launched on the 29th of November in Nairobi at the French Cultural Center (for those of you who will be in Nairobi at the time) and all are welcome.The Film is about: Kisilu Musya, a smallholder farmer in Kenya Kitui, who for the last five
years has used his camera to capture the life of his family, his village
and the impacts of climate change. He has filmed floods, droughts. He takes his message all the way to the UN
Climate Talks, in Paris, COP21. Here, amid the murky cut and thrust of
politics at the biggest environmental show on earth, Kisilu and Norwegian
filmmaker Julia Dahr’s perspective takes on a remarkable twist, shedding a
powerful light on the climate justice movement and the vastly different
worlds they represent.*
*Watch the trailer:* http://thankyoufortherain.com/trailer
Hi, just to give a perspective from East Africa, there is a collaboration
with The University of Nairobi Institute for Climate Change and Adaptation on the outreach of a film called “Thank you for the Rain”. The Film will be launched on the 29th of November in Nairobi at the French Cultural Center (for those of you who will be in Nairobi at the time) and all are welcome.The Film is about: Kisilu Musya, a smallholder farmer in Kenya Kitui, who for the last five
years has used his camera to capture the life of his family, his village
and the impacts of climate change. He takes his message all the way to the UN
Climate Talks, in Paris, COP21. Here, amid the murky cut and thrust of
politics at the biggest environmental show on earth, Kisilu and Norwegian
filmmaker Julia Dahr’s perspective takes on a remarkable twist, shedding a
powerful light on the climate justice movement and the vastly different
worlds they represent.*
*Watch the trailer:* http://thankyoufortherain.com/trailer
2017 10 2017.792 403.64 403.64
2016 10 2016.792 401.57 401.57
October monthly CO2 increase 2.07 ppm
wrong way, too fast
Turkey Day!
Mike
nigel 232,
OK, I see you’ve got it completely backwards. But I don’t think you can blame me for this– I provided examples, and even the reference you gave earlier supported what I am saying.
1. Higher density = less pollution.
2. The US has lower density.
You are obviously confusing “the forest and the trees” here.
If you have two big cities, that is less polluting than having the total population spread over ten cities, because you have to move products and people and energy among those cities.
Ten cities is more efficient than 20 cities, and 20 cities is more efficient than 40 towns, and 40 towns is more efficient than 80 villages.
If you don’t get this stuff, please just ask for clarification– lots of effort has been wasted here, “disagreeing” about the wrong thing.
In the US, Europe, and even New Zealand, the distribution of population is based on the geographical conditions that influenced decisions in the past— cities develop for a reason, like a harbor, or location on a rail line or a river, or because it is militarily defensible, and so on. Also, because it has access to a prime source of energy like hydro.
As the population declines, the less desirable locations will be abandoned. We observe this even with the US population that is still growing, as young people leave the smaller towns to seek opportunity in more densely populated locations.
Mr. KIA: ” First, ignore those people – they make up only 2.5% of the world population – they are of no consequence in the AGW game.”
Jesus wept! Are you really that dim? That 2.5% of the population consumes over 20% of the resources of the planet! What is more, the US economy is designed to maximize consumption rather than minimize it. What the US should be doing is leading the way in developing technologies and infrastructure that minimize the strain on the planet–but as the Black Friday idiocy demonstrates, we are doing the opposite.
Mr. Ironically Anosognosic Typist:
His odd arithmetic aside, Mr. IAT comfirms he is wholly oblivious of The Tragedy of the Commons. AGW may be said to be a cost of his tragically ordinary anosognosia in aggregate.
For the cognitively unimpaired, I offer this Nature Climate Change Perspective, “Managing the climate commons at the nexus of ecology, behaviour and economics”.
Climate change has been offered as a possible explanation for the major wardrobe malfunctions recently suffered by some members of The House Science Committee.
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/11/wind-turbines-to-blame-for-congressmans.html
Teh Ice Apocalypse (narrated)
http://climatestate.com/2017/11/23/ice-apocalypse
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/rec.12387/abstract
Egress! How technophilia can reinforce biophilia to improve ecological restoration
First published: 3 June 2016
DOI: 10.1111/rec.12387
In case you missed it Willie Soon brought to you and funded by Exxon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxXTgcwk3jQ
#HowToFail
Mr Know it all @233,
Well the right wing in America may only make up 2.5% of global population, but their emissions will be well above the global average and they have a significant and unfortunate effect on climate policy as a whole. Thomas has vented his frustration with American attitudes as a whole and there’s an element of truth, and for me its sad when a global leader like America goes so wrong, this is frustrating because leaders are important in this climate issue. We cannot ignore them but its hard persuading ideologically driven willful idiots.
And climate policy is important to push renewable energy and get electric car recharging stations going. The free market is good economics often, but is very painfully slow to promote these sorts of things.
Yes there are things we can personally do and I have no argument with your various suggestions. Except get an electric bike? No not my thing, biking, but I own a very fuel efficient low emissions petrol car, and will soon be buying an electric car, probably the Nissan leaf or the new middle range tesla, and just last week I replaced all my light bulbs (which are getting old) with led bulbs, which use about half the power of compact fluorescent’s, and don’t have the mercury problem, and also give nice instant light where the fluorescent’s take a while to get going.
New stuff often has a range of surprise advantages like this, and I think we will find this with many things like electric cars, and renewable energy for example. Although some new technology seems waste of time, I wont be spending money on face recognition smartphones, just an expensive toy.
@235 Rosemary Barasa: Thanks for the trailer to the award-winning film, “Thank You for the Rain.” A transcendent selfie, so to speak. Great leadership.
http://thankyoufortherain.com/media
@188 drfog > That is exactly what you are saying [coal is not a problem]…
Hmm. That’s not even inexactly what I’m saying (#175).