OT: Thought provoking read

[Kirk007]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/learning-how-to-die-in-the-anthropocene/?ref=opinion

[Louis]

Saw that earlier, but I didn't have a time to read the whole article or think about it much. In general my thoughts about this short of thing are that unless cause and effect are immediate and observable (like a solider in Iraq, and even then they get used to it after a while) people don't worry much about the bad stuff going on around them.

Inertia.

[merlincustom1]

It's ironic that it's written around veteran's day, with a shift in focus from the warrior to the effects of war and of course much more that stems from such short term thinking.

[verticaldoug]

It's already been made into a movie Soylant Green

[93legendti]

Keep pushing the global warming canard...:rolleyes: ... there are suckers born every minute...well, actually, fewer and fewer, as more people catch onto the con.

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pd
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/16/ipcc-models-getting-mushy/
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/09/new-climate-report-obliterates-un-ipcc-and-warmists/
http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

And no, I don't derive any income from disproving global warming hysteria.

[goonster]

And no, I don't derive any income from disproving global warming
Perhaps not, but the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, the Science & Environmental Policy Project and the Heartland Institute, to whose output you link above, do.

(The latter two also took money from tobacco companies to minimize the harmful effects of cigarette smoke.)

[93legendti]

Perhaps not, but the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, the Science & Environmental Policy Project and the Heartland Institute, to whose output you link above, do.

(The latter two also took money from tobacco companies to minimize the harmful effects of cigarette smoke.)

You left out a word.

"And no, I don't derive any income from disproving global warming hysteria."

[Saint Vitus]

And no, I don't derive any income from disproving global warming hysteria.

Not that I thought you did...

Soooooooo anyway, the writing is very good (whether or not you accept the prognosis.) for an army private.

[PQJ]

Adam -

No money, but what about nachas?

[texbike]

Keep pushing the global warming canard...:rolleyes: ... there are suckers born every minute...well, actually, fewer and fewer, as more people catch onto the con.

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pd
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/16/ipcc-models-getting-mushy/
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/09/new-climate-report-obliterates-un-ipcc-and-warmists/
http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf




Blah, Blah, Blah. Being in Texas, I hear this crap all the time.

So, what if all of the global warming "hysteria/con" turns out to be just that? What is the harm in erring on the side of caution? What is the harm in working to reduce carbon emissions and pollutants in our environment? What is the harm in finding ways to grow smartly and to reduce the destruction of wild habitat? What is the harm in personally living within a small footprint and minimizing our destructive practices on our environment?

IMO, the only potential harm is the loss of economic gain. Should economic gain be our only target for setting political policy and personal behaviors?

It seems that all of the research that discounts our destructive practices and tendencies comes from "think tanks", groups, and individuals that are funded or tied to interests that have a vested (economic) interest in maintaining the status quo or expanding environmentally unsound practices.

Adam, who do you think we should listen to?

Texbike

[eddief]

i'm buying a snorkel and an Elizabeth Warren for President in 2016 bumper sticker. whatever it takes to survive and make the world a better place.

[ptourkin]

Blah, Blah, Blah. Being in Texas, I hear this crap all the time.

So, what if all of the global warming "hysteria/con" turns out to be just that? What is the harm in erring on the side of caution? What is the harm in working to reduce carbon emissions and pollutants in our environment? What is the harm in finding ways to grow smartly and to reduce the destruction of wild habitat? What is the harm in personally living within a small footprint and minimizing our destructive practices on our environment?

IMO, the only potential harm is the loss of economic gain. Should economic gain be our only target for setting political policy and personal behaviors?

It seems that all of the research that discounts our destructive practices and tendencies comes from "think tanks", groups, and individuals that are funded or tied to interests that have a vested (economic) interest in maintaining the status quo or expanding environmentally unsound practices.

Adam, who do you think we should listen to?

Texbike

^This! Why not?

[gasman]

Good read, thanks for posting it Greg.

I believe the climate scientists and think we are hosed as nothing is really going to change the majority of people's' behavior.
Our family does our part to minimize our carbon footprint.

It's funny. Only the US and the UK seem to have a vocal climate denier population. Well the Chinese government also.

[William]

Good read, thanks for posting it Greg.

I believe the climate scientists and think we are hosed as nothing is really going to change the majority of people's' behavior.
Our family does our part to minimize our carbon footprint.

It's funny. Only the US and the UK seem to have a vocal climate denier population. Well the Chinese government also.


Once you've lived in excess baby, there's no going back!!! :banana: :rolleyes: :)






William

[Kirk007]

...well, actually, fewer and fewer, as more people catch onto the con.



Actually to the contrary Adam: http://www.azcentral.com/news/free/20131113study-global-warming-alarms-usa.html

You are now firmly in the shrinking minority. BUT, this article is not about climate change (don't confuse cause and effect - and how clever to interpret/spin the discussion to avoid its real import-makes me think of Jack Nicholson's character in a Few Good Men about folks not being able to handle the truth.... But I digress. The proof will be in the pudding on climate change, and Adam, I hope you are right and I am wrong, but I truly believe you are stuck in Kansas on this one.


Here is a young man (the author) who has seen cities collapse at the hands of man and nature. (And should we just ignore what just happened in the Philippines or add it to his list of events?) And he's asking questions about how to deal with that, and the mounting evidence that this is our future, as humans. His essay reminds me of Aldo Leopold's famous quote, who after a lifetime as a forester and a few epiphanies of his own, wrote in A Sand County Almanac:

“One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise.”

This is an issue I grapple with daily, as I believe the writer is grappling with his own experiences, what that tells him about the future, and how to respond. I find his path to eastern writings also interesting, as I have also taken some solace in those philosophies.

No Adam, I didn't post this to talk about climate change on this forum; that's like stepping into the mud pit with the pig and we all know how that plays out. Rather its a chance for folks to reflect if they choose to. No more, no less.

[SlackMan]

...

IMO, the only potential harm is the loss of economic gain. Should economic gain be our only target for setting political policy and personal behaviors?
...
Texbike

Let me state upfront that I'm what many would view as an environmentalist -- We reduce, re-use, and recycle, carpool when possible, avoid unnecessary trips, have programmable thermostats, timers to shut off things that use electricity, etc.

But, when thinking about trying to solve global warming, it is extremely (!) important that one considers the economic implications. Almost all of the "problems" that societies want to solve, e.g., health care, education, infrastructure, poverty, etc., require substantial amounts of money to solve. If societies adopt policies that substantially hamper economic growth, then they in effect leave themselves with small economic wealth in the future to help solve problems. And sadly, many policies that countries adopt in the name of fighting global warming seem to be misguided ones that will negatively impact economic activity and growth. Do we really want to have a cooler climate but much less wealth to solve society's problems?

A carbon tax with money rebated to citizens would seem to be the simplest solution that would avoid much of the distortions created by other policies. Imagine a simple experiment in which gasoline goes to $8/gallon because of the tax. Almost certainly, many people would start to carpool. Put 3 people into one car who used to take separate cars, and it is equivalent to tripling the mpg of the car. At $8/gallon perhaps someone doesn't take an unnecessary trip by car--that is equivalent to an infinite increase in mpg for that "trip." Airfares would rise dramatically causing people to vacation more locally. And so on.

The punchline is that the economic effects matter very much and there are better ways to achieve carbon reduction than what many are currently doing.

See below for some interesting reading.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/business/a-carbon-tax-that-america-could-live-with.html?_r=0

[malcolm]

human nature, we tend to ignore problems until we are on the precipice of disaster and hope that the government or technology will save us. The problem with the climate, assuming you believe in that sort of thing is the tipping point may have already occurred.

[Louis]

The problem with the climate, assuming you believe in that sort of thing is the tipping point may have already occurred.

If that truly is the case, then Party On Dude !!!

[Likes2ridefar]

Let me state upfront that I'm what many would view as an environmentalist -- We reduce, re-use, and recycle, carpool when possible, avoid unnecessary trips, have programmable thermostats, timers to shut off things that use electricity, etc.

But, when thinking about trying to solve global warming, it is extremely (!) important that one considers the economic implications. Almost all of the "problems" that societies want to solve, e.g., health care, education, infrastructure, poverty, etc., require substantial amounts of money to solve. If societies adopt policies that substantially hamper economic growth, then they in effect leave themselves with small economic wealth in the future to help solve problems. And sadly, many policies that countries adopt in the name of fighting global warming seem to be misguided ones that will negatively impact economic activity and growth. Do we really want to have a cooler climate but much less wealth to solve society's problems?

A carbon tax with money rebated to citizens would seem to be the simplest solution that would avoid much of the distortions created by other policies. Imagine a simple experiment in which gasoline goes to $8/gallon because of the tax. Almost certainly, many people would start to carpool. Put 3 people into one car who used to take separate cars, and it is equivalent to tripling the mpg of the car. At $8/gallon perhaps someone doesn't take an unnecessary trip by car--that is equivalent to an infinite increase in mpg for that "trip." Airfares would rise dramatically causing people to vacation more locally. And so on.

The punchline is that the economic effects matter very much and there are better ways to achieve carbon reduction than what many are currently doing.

See below for some interesting reading.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/business/a-carbon-tax-that-america-could-live-with.html?_r=0

maybe the notion that everything is based on economic growth needs to be reconsidered.

Just a hunch, but $8 gas would CRUSH the USA economy considering basically EVERYTHING uses it.

While your intentions are probably good, I have to roll my eyes at what you consider being green is. Not saying i'm any better, but it looks pretty silly if you step away a bit.

[SlackMan]

maybe the notion that everything is based on economic growth needs to be reconsidered.

Just a hunch, but a $8 gas would CRUSH the USA economy considering basically EVERYTHING uses it.

While your intentions are probably good, I have to roll my eyes at what you consider being green is. Not saying i'm any better, but it looks pretty silly if you step away a bit.

But, remember that the carbon tax would be rebated to citizens. If you took the tax out and wasted it in any of various ways, yes, it would crush the economy. But if it is rebated, all it does is raise the price of carbon based energy relative to other things, thereby creating an incentive to consume less carbon based energy.

[54ny77]

Rising tides?

Bring it on....

http://waterbiking.org/image1.jpg

[sg8357]

Rising tides?

Bring it on....


They're not planning.

[velotel]

A good read, thanks for the link. Like you said, thought provoking. Trouble is only for those who are already thinking about it. For the others, nothing there of interest.

[bobswire]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/learning-how-to-die-in-the-anthropocene/?ref=opinion

Thanks.

[Ahneida Ride]

The danger is in the enforcement ....

Carbon Credits (monetary units) created outa thin air like fed reserve notes.
with all the complementary derivative products.

The frn controls what we can buy ... The CC will control what we can
discard.

The danger is further slide into a Feudal state with Serfs and Nobility.

[Climb01742]

There's an interesting irony here. There are those who would deny the military nothing, who see the military as beyond question...until the military supports the science of climate change. I don't recall many ever accusing the military of being bleeding heart tree huggers, do you?;)

As Texbike said, where's the downside to shrinking our footprint on this planet?

[Louis]

where's the downside to shrinking our footprint on this planet?

Nobody's going to tell me not to set my thermostat to 80* in the winter !!!

(that's a joke - during the winter mine is permanently set to 58*)

[1centaur]

I would guess millions of people would die who otherwise would not if economic growth were cut significantly enough to prevent global warming. Growth pays for health care, demographics will demand more health care, there are not enough taxes to pay for health care. Greater poverty would likely lead to deaths in other ways as well. Political turmoil could lead to war (Middle East without most of their income would be an issue) and the West would decline in power with implications for stability.

That's not to say that millions might not die some day from global warming, but the thought that reducing growth ENOUGH is a might as well thing is, I believe, wrong. This is why it would ideal to find ways to cut carbon emissions that make people money, that create growth in themselves. BTW, don't believe the government would actually raise a lot of money from carbon taxes and give them back to people, but even if they did the distortions that followed would be significant. Carbon-fueled travel provides a lot of value to the world.

Recycling a bottle, building a windmill or turning off some lights is a might as well, but might as wells won't change the problem enough to matter.

[christian]

Just a hunch, but $8 gas would CRUSH the USA economy considering basically EVERYTHING uses it.Oh, if only one of the forum members from the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands, or Italy could crawl out from their corrugated cardboard hut, power up their handcrank wireless transceiver, and tap out a message confirming their bleak, post-apocalyptic existence, that'd be great.

PS, tuscanyswe, when you start selling bike parts for bullets and renskav, can I buy your Lightweights? :)

[Elefantino]

There's an interesting irony here. There are those who would deny the military nothing, who see the military as beyond question...until the military supports the science of climate change. I don't recall many ever accusing the military of being bleeding heart tree huggers, do you?;)

As Texbike said, where's the downside to shrinking our footprint on this planet?
Because then it would mean you are agreeing with Al Gore. And some people hate Al Gore worse than they hate the current president.

Everything is political.

[pbarry]

Nobody's going to tell me not to set my thermostat to 80* in the winter !!!

(that's a joke - during the winter mine is permanently set to 58*)

Louis, you are good people. :hello:

I live in a passive solar house that gets to 65 degrees inside, on clear days in the deep winter, just sitting there. If I get home late, the temperature drops rapidly after the sun goes down, and it can be a challenge to keep the house in the low 60's with only wood heat, when it's near or below zero at night. No complaints, as I have no fuel bills, and it's good exercise putting up wood. President Reagan had something there. ;)

We've had it easy since the Industrial Revolution. Our descendants may perish because of it.

[Louis]

when it's near or below zero at night

This is what kills me during the winter. Electric heat using power from the coal-fired plant just down the road from me makes me feel guilty, but I'm afraid that if I turned the temp down any more I could have issues with the pipes near the outside walls freezing.

Next year I'm going to be getting new siding and replace most if not all of the old original single-pane windows, and overall I think that's going to help quite a bit.

[Kirk007]

That's not to say that millions might not die some day from global warming,

That day may be here sooner than we think; certainly we are seeing hundreds of thousands, and perhaps soon millions, who will be displaced by sea rise. Will it kill them, we'll see; maybe not directly, but further displacement, civil conflict, disease - there will be nothing pretty about the future on our current trajectory. Really sucks to be born on a Pacific Island or the coastal regions of India and similarly situated countries (and oh yes, the Native Alaskans in the good ole USA). Dade County and Miami planners refuse to consider 100 year sea rise scenarios, choosing to try to deal with 50 year scenarios, which is sorta like deciding to pump your flat half way to normal inflation and expecting to make it home.

The human and economic implications of the current projected temperature changes probably go well past millions of deaths, most of which will occur in third world countries not here. If the eastern seaboard was washing away at the same rate as some of the Pacific Islanders are dealing with I strongly suspect we would have gotten off our asses a long time ago and would be taking drastic measures.

[Louis]

most of which will occur in third world countries not here.

And therefore the countries that are directly or indirectly responsible for the changes won't care and won't do anything about it.

[Kirk007]

And therefore the countries that are directly or indirectly responsible for the changes won't care and won't do anything about it.

Yep. heck of a world - although the emerging studies/concern on food supply) could bite us in the butt pretty hard....

But I digress down the slippery slope of climate change, which I continue to view as the primary antagonist of the column but not the message.

[malcolm]

Nobody's going to tell me not to set my thermostat to 80* in the winter !!!

(that's a joke - during the winter mine is permanently set to 58*)


Damn, Louis, really 58. Do you wear a parka in the house? We set ours around 64, unless the kids get to it then it's either 0 or 100, and I constantly have on a fleece.

1 centaur, this is a serious question and it possibly just shows my ignorance. Is it not possible to have a vibrant economy based on zero or near zero growth. A stable or fairly stable population with an economy and industry geared to support that population. I realize we have neither now, but is that an impossibility?

[Likes2ridefar]

Oh, if only one of the forum members from the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands, or Italy could crawl out from their corrugated cardboard hut, power up their handcrank wireless transceiver, and tap out a message confirming their bleak, post-apocalyptic existence, that'd be great.

PS, tuscanyswe, when you start selling bike parts for bullets and renskav, can I buy your Lightweights? :)

the countries are so different it's kinda silly to even compare.

the US consumes more than 10 times the UK and it drops off significantly with the other countries after the UK.

[christian]

the countries are so different it's kinda silly to even compare.

the US consumes more than 10 times the UK and it drops off significantly with the other countries after the UK.They're not different in climate and standard of living. They're different in political priorities.

[Likes2ridefar]

They're not different in climate and standard of living. They're different in political priorities.

what about size and distribution of population?

[texbike]

1 centaur, this is a serious question and it possibly just shows my ignorance. Is it not possible to have a vibrant economy based on zero or near zero growth. A stable or fairly stable population with an economy and industry geared to support that population. I realize we have neither now, but is that an impossibility?

Economics are important and I understand the points that 1Centaur and Slackman make. Dollars in the pockets of people allow them to lead better lives and dollars in the pockets of governments allow programs that push our societies forward (in most cases). Shutting down economies could have potentially massive negative implications.

However, there has to be a balance. Somehow societies have managed to rise and fall for thousands of years without an insane focus on growth in GDP and mass consumerization. Instead of focusing on making crap, what if our economies were driven more by the development of technologies and practices that increased our environmental friendliness, levels of education, increased health and well being, and fewer reality shows?

Texbike

[SlackMan]

... Instead of focusing on making crap, what if our economies were driven more by the development of technologies and practices that increased our environmental friendliness, levels of education, increased health and well being, and fewer reality shows?

Texbike

I would support taxing the heck out of reality shows to discourage their number. Or, better, taxing the heck out of all TV shows!;)

[pitonpat]

Blah, Blah, Blah. Being in Texas, I hear this crap all the time.

So, what if all of the global warming "hysteria/con" turns out to be just that? What is the harm in erring on the side of caution? What is the harm in working to reduce carbon emissions and pollutants in our environment? What is the harm in finding ways to grow smartly and to reduce the destruction of wild habitat? What is the harm in personally living within a small footprint and minimizing our destructive practices on our environment?

IMO, the only potential harm is the loss of economic gain. Should economic gain be our only target for setting political policy and personal behaviors?

It seems that all of the research that discounts our destructive practices and tendencies comes from "think tanks", groups, and individuals that are funded or tied to interests that have a vested (economic) interest in maintaining the status quo or expanding environmentally unsound practices.

Adam, who do you think we should listen to?

Texbike

I second your concise and cogent reply to this matter. Couldn't have said it better myself...

[1centaur]

Is it not possible to have a vibrant economy based on zero or near zero growth. A stable or fairly stable population with an economy and industry geared to support that population. I realize we have neither now, but is that an impossibility?

Short answer I think is clearly no if "vibrant" is even a hope. As to whether some grim pact of zero growth could be enforced...dubious.

Population on earth has grown and grown from the Garden of Eden onwards (metaphorically). To me, that suggests what we humans WANT to do. Certainly modern western economies have reached very low growth levels as intellect has battled with emotion and we don't need kids to farm the land, etc. But still we are barely past our industrialization period and now trying to keep the balls in the air with all that "consumer crap." We have never seen a time when the earth's population has successfully maintained no growth status, so any discussion is theoretical.

My theory is that when people attempt to get no better, no more, no reward for greater effort, they slow down, give up, don't care as much, etc. Think about the practical limitations of a zero growth mandate: do some grow and some shrink? Do all aspire to nothing more? Either choice leads to discontent and strife, at least, and most likely creates negative growth. Zero growth is dancing on the head of a pin. Economies of millions of people can't do that. We need hope to strive and as we strive we hope to improve our lot and maybe the lot of some others.

Might we create a culture of slower growth and lower expectations to delay the effects of population growth on the planet? Yes in a country with a common culture. No on a globe with an uncommon culture. At the very least, not until the emerging markets have emerged and are in the slow population growth mode of the West, which will be way after the warming cliff has been jumped over.

Again, we need to make money by doing things for our environment. If along the way we can move the culture to a more leisurely outlook as a US trait, that would be good for stress levels (though the benefits of max GDP would not be realized).

[Kirk007]

My theory is that when people attempt to get no better, no more, no reward for greater effort, they slow down, give up, don't care as much, etc. .

Seems to me this postulates an absolute that the only better is material gain with no sense of enough. There is no room here for "better" equaling other values, hence capitalism and materialism are the only option.

Frankly, I don't think this is ingrained human nature, rather I think it is a cultural norm that we have been taught. Like rats pushing the bar for another pellet we've lost the ability to feel sated always striving for the latest, greatest improvement and our consumption never ends and will not end until we've consumed it all, and in the course of doing so consume ourselves.

Maybe this is the sad state today but I'm not sure it has always been this way as a universal culture on earth. While I'm no anthropologist I recall enough anecdotes of cultures, even some current (or maybe 50 years ago current) island cultures when this constant striving was not known. We hear stories of more agrarian cultures in the past of living more in accord with the seasonality of their lives. When we had to exert real human capital - our calories, our safety etc., I would guess we didn't try to accumulate more than we could use.

We strive for more, and over consume out of choice not need; a path strongly ingrained in American culture probably since the time of settlers (Puritan culture and all). But it is a choice, our choice, and a deadly one that an unwavering resignation to capitalism enables.

But we are where we are, it is indeed hard to see any soft landing, so pragmatically are we left to believing in rocketships or do we embrace the adage I first say in a climbing store in Boulder my first year of law school: "He who dies with the most toys wins" - I thought it was quite clever at the time - I bought the t-shirt.

[1centaur]

I tried to head off the temporary, localized cultural experiments argument by talking about the globe. If some try for zero growth and others don't, guess who takes over? Human nature in the aggregate is what relates to global warming.

Again, after every country that's ever going to count is up to speed, so to speak, is it vaguely possible that cultures will homogenize and come to value a zero growth ethos for the benefit of the collective rather than themselves? Sure, let's grant that for the sake of argument. Is that possible soon enough to make a difference under current theories of global warming timing? No. Science (let's call that solar everything to keep it simple) is going to slash our carbon footprint long, long before society chooses to become a sustainable commune. If a pandemic doesn't get us first.

[Climb01742]

Short answer I think is clearly no if "vibrant" is even a hope. As to whether some grim pact of zero growth could be enforced...dubious.

Population on earth has grown and grown from the Garden of Eden onwards (metaphorically). To me, that suggests what we humans WANT to do. Certainly modern western economies have reached very low growth levels as intellect has battled with emotion and we don't need kids to farm the land, etc. But still we are barely past our industrialization period and now trying to keep the balls in the air with all that "consumer crap." We have never seen a time when the earth's population has successfully maintained no growth status, so any discussion is theoretical.

My theory is that when people attempt to get no better, no more, no reward for greater effort, they slow down, give up, don't care as much, etc. Think about the practical limitations of a zero growth mandate: do some grow and some shrink? Do all aspire to nothing more? Either choice leads to discontent and strife, at least, and most likely creates negative growth. Zero growth is dancing on the head of a pin. Economies of millions of people can't do that. We need hope to strive and as we strive we hope to improve our lot and maybe the lot of some others.

Might we create a culture of slower growth and lower expectations to delay the effects of population growth on the planet? Yes in a country with a common culture. No on a globe with an uncommon culture. At the very least, not until the emerging markets have emerged and are in the slow population growth mode of the West, which will be way after the warming cliff has been jumped over.

Again, we need to make money by doing things for our environment. If along the way we can move the culture to a more leisurely outlook as a US trait, that would be good for stress levels (though the benefits of max GDP would not be realized).

the argument you put forth, while eloquent, is, IMO, deeply wrong.

your argument boils down to...human nature, being what it is...

in this view, the darker angels of human nature will always prevail and thus a 'smart' person will always expect the worst from our species and act accordingly.

it is cynicism posing as wisdom. it is selfishness posing as pragmatism. psychology posing as truth.

human history is, yes, one long tug of war between of higher and baser instincts and motives. but our darker angels don't always win. if they did, would there be any democracies today? why wouldn't there only be dictatorships and brutal monarchies? if they did, why are there universities of knowledge, vs only academies of war? if they did, why are there charities and religious orders vs only drug cartels and wall street banks?;)

humanity_is_a struggle between darkness and light, selfishness and unselfishness. but there is no pre-destined victor.

we are a flawed species, but we are also a deeply good species. the two sides will always battle. but when it matters most, we produce mother theresa, not just joseph stalin.

[fuzzalow]

the argument you put forth, while eloquent, is, IMO, deeply wrong. and is one made by many in financial services and wall street to rationalize their behavior.

you so eloquently make this dark argument that because of human nature, we're screwed...so why not be the screwer, not the screwee. it's how wall street gets up in the morning and rationalizes all the harm they are about to do.

I don't disagree with the bulk of what you posted but clipped these excerpts to disagree with singling out Wall St. as rationalizing knowingly pernicious behavior as both by intent and design. Financial services fed at the trough as did, for example, the shrinking-middleclass and the vast pool of semi-skilled labor that comprised much of the housing industry. Everybody leveraged up and it was just a matter of degree - some used consumer credit, others used financial derivatives. There were no innocents in the prelude to the Great Recession. In fairness, there is no denying some made out far better than others in the aftermath.

Working in a profession does not define who or what you are as a human being. Living with that dichotomy in a manner cohesive to each individual's personal equilibrium is the consequence of adulthood. Making a living is tough and life isn't for sissies.

To circle this back around somewhat to the OP, I agree with how Mayor Bloomberg addressed the issue of climate change post-Hurricane Sandy: in essence, the responsible thing is to do something that accounts for greater ferocity and volatility in the weather pattern rather than simply do nothing. Being wrong just means a error on the side of conservatism rather than of denial.

[1centaur]

I don't see it as darkness, so I would resist the cynic (or selfish) label. Of course, cynics have always thought they were realists... But I don't think striving for more qualifies as "the worst" from our species. The tragedy of the commons does not require bad acting any more than does Greek tragedy. I am one of those who would say that people are inherently good, in fact, though that may be my cultural delusion or what I see when I look in the mirror. That does not translate to Mother Teresa or Joseph Stalin but somewhere in the vast middle. One of the recent lessons that drives me is having lived through hyper local politics in my small town over a number of years as it has found a way not to build a new library. When I see how my neighbors speak and behave and think, I can see why national politics have become the way they are. We have core emotions that drive us, and wanting our way, our personal way, because it's right and fair, is highly ingrained no matter the social graces in which we cloak ourselves. We are partially evolved animals, and any collective selflessness is at best many steps up the road. Just look at what it takes for ONE person to truly live for the collective - all reasonable needs met (mostly through the efforts of somewhat selfish people, ironically) and belief that such will remain the case so one can afford to be a minor Mother Teresa (a very unpleasant person as I recall). That's rare even in America, so how can one expect it to occur globally? And if one did, the reverse tragedy of the commons would occur - everyone living for everyone else would reduce the pie and thus the support for living selflessly.

Democracies are not about goodness, they are about the power of the many over the few. They are a rational way for more people to get what they want.

[1centaur]

Looks from fuzzalow's post that climb edited out something about Wall Street getting up in the morning to screw people. Good edit, but I will just comment that I have been in investments for 25 years, buy side and sell side, and it is absolutely not true that Wall Street generally gets up thinking they're going to screw people. That's a convenient political narrative designed for people who are not focused on what Wall Street does but not remotely true. I just don't know if the politicians who say it believe it.

A more accurate representation of Wall Street is that they get up in the morning to do their jobs which are very narrowly defined so as to maximize the odds of making money (generally true of all business but more precisely delineated in a world of numbers than widgets). When 100,000 people do narrowly defined tasks individually, sometimes the collective result is excess for society, since those 100,000 actions are not exquisitely coordinated. Theoretically, the guys running banks and investment banks can observe the whole and know something's going off the rails at a gross level (regulators too) but in reality most of those people may also have their eyes on one set of numbers, not all sets of numbers, lack imagination and are thinking about about their next power lunch. They may look at profit and loss for 25 departments and then try to figure out why two of the departments are losing money rather than step back and wonder why real estate should keep going up faster than our economic growth suggests. They are not deep thinkers as much as accomplished numbers guys with a sense of risk and return. For the good of all of us, we should not want institutions like that being too big to fail, but their role in the global financial crisis was driven by blinkered focus on business as usual, not intent to screw people (since in their rational minds, if they screw people eventually people will not do business with them). Exceptions exist on Wall Street and your local 7-11, but collectively Wall Street is just trying to make a good living doing something with numbers they have a talent for.

[Climb01742]

Looks from fuzzalow's post that climb edited out something about Wall Street getting up in the morning to screw people. Good edit, but I will just comment that I have been in investments for 25 years, buy side and sell side, and it is absolutely not true that Wall Street generally gets up thinking they're going to screw people. That's a convenient political narrative designed for people who are not focused on what Wall Street does but not remotely true. I just don't know if the politicians who say it believe it.

A more accurate representation of Wall Street is that they get up in the morning to do their jobs which are very narrowly defined so as to maximize the odds of making money (generally true of all business but more precisely delineated in a world of numbers than widgets). When 100,000 people do narrowly defined tasks individually, sometimes the collective result is excess for society, since those 100,000 actions are not exquisitely coordinated. Theoretically, the guys running banks and investment banks can observe the whole and know something's going off the rails at a gross level (regulators too) but in reality most of those people may also have their eyes on one set of numbers, not all sets of numbers, lack imagination and are thinking about about their next power lunch. They may look at profit and loss for 25 departments and then try to figure out why two of the departments are losing money rather than step back and wonder why real estate should keep going up faster than our economic growth suggests. They are not deep thinkers as much as accomplished numbers guys with a sense of risk and return. For the good of all of us, we should not want institutions like that being too big to fail, but their role in the global financial crisis was driven by blinkered focus on business as usual, not intent to screw people (since in their rational minds, if they screw people eventually people will not do business with them). Exceptions exist on Wall Street and your local 7-11, but collectively Wall Street is just trying to make a good living doing something with numbers they have a talent for.

icentaur, i did edit my post because i realized my brush was too broad. but if we stipulate that you're right, that many good people do work on wall street. fair point. then why does wall street wind up causing so much harm in the name of profit?

should any enterprise define its purpose so narrowly -- maximize profit -- that it precludes from its purpose considering the wider societal cause+effect of its actions? many of the most admired and successful companies do manage to make a profit and consider their societal ramifications.

i would argue that too many financial firms give themselves an easy out to behave badly by narrowly defining social and human responsibility out of their mission. perhaps you're right. perhaps the consequences of profit first and only are, indeed, unintended consequences of social and human damage.

if we put aside motives, can't a case still be made that wall street would serve society better if profit was_part_of the equation, with the consequences of the actions that led to the profit also be part of the equation? without that larger equation, aren't we giving some number of wall street denizens a too-convenient excuse for myopic behavior?

[Kirk007]

Wanting more. Demanding it all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/15/opinion/egan-under-my-thumb.html?smid=pl-share

[William]

Wanting more. Demanding it all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/15/opinion/egan-under-my-thumb.html?smid=pl-share

Interesting comment...

The new corporate business model apparently is the old plantation model.


Tough to argue against when the company is making profits counted in the billions, the CEO is making 27 million a year and rising, while at the same time wants the skilled workers to take a pay & benefit cuts ~and~ get more tax breaks from the state.





William

[malcolm]

If you look at growth strictly in the sense of population numbers if we don't do something to curtail it then I don't think climate change or anything else will matter much. If you look at our planet as a closed system which for all practical purposes it is. The basic elements that make us and our stuff up are here already and while some are recyclable many are not and there are no new ones on the way. With that as a given when do we exceed the capacity of our resources to support us? I suspect we are already at a number that can't be supported indefinitely.

If growth includes a growing population and the resources to sustain them it seems logical that at some point there simply isn't enough in a contained system. Too many fish in the tank so to speak.

[Black Dog]

http://youtu.be/zORv8wwiadQ

Here is an interesting argument about dealing with climate change that I found very compelling and simple. It addresses all the viewpoints and still comes to a very powerful conclusion about what we should do. All in a few minutes.

[Likes2ridefar]

If you look at growth strictly in the sense of population numbers if we don't do something to curtail it then I don't think climate change or anything else will matter much. If you look at our planet as a closed system which for all practical purposes it is. The basic elements that make us and our stuff up are here already and while some are recyclable many are not and there are no new ones on the way. With that as a given when do we exceed the capacity of our resources to support us? I suspect we are already at a number that can't be supported indefinitely.

If growth includes a growing population and the resources to sustain them it seems logical that at some point there simply isn't enough in a contained system. Too many fish in the tank so to speak.

i'd vote start with the poor people defined by the US govt poverty line. Nothing but a thorn in the side making my tank leak.

[Saint Vitus]

Wanting more. Demanding it all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/15/opinion/egan-under-my-thumb.html?smid=pl-share

Knowing the writing is on the wall and the result is a last ditch effort to maximize their potential before the bottom drops out, like a death row conversion of sorts...

[malcolm]

i'd vote start with the poor people defined by the US govt poverty line. Nothing but a thorn in the side making my tank leak.

I don't follow you?

[Saint Vitus]

I don't follow you?

In the twenties, he'd be a eugenics proponent...

[1centaur]

The debate of profit only or profit plus some soft societal considerations is an eternal one, or at least as eternal as going back to my business school education. Always the fear is that not profit maximizing may mean being taken out by somebody who does, another reflection of what I talked about elsewhere in this thread for people or cultures.

Ideally, I think companies can take their foot off the gas a little bit and do some good without weakening themselves to the point of extinction. That is what Starbucks does, and really any company that makes a show of its social conscience. They are gambling their future and the futures of their workers that they can afford to not maximize. The stronger they are the easier it is to be generous because they risk less. Just as a lot of top end Wall Streeters give a ton to charity after elbowing their way to the top, so big companies may have not been very generous before being exemplars of a new way when they dominate.

Wall Street can be harmful because it is so big and so intertwined. And I'd say that almost everybody who works on Wall Street has a character that's really average, rather than say that many good people work on Wall Street. To be fair, I'd also say that average character faced with much above average money will sometimes not make the choices that people with above average character would make. But logic suggests that people go to work there because it pays well and usually the work interests them. They don't emerge from the College of Satan and ask where they can create the most harm. They enter at some grunt level with no power and little responsibility and get promoted if they show good decision making skills, decent communication and appropriate intellect (that actually is well above population averages). They really get promoted if they make other people money. Ethics both internal and external are POUNDED into them constantly (not true in normal industries). Bad character emerges based more on nature than nurture, and bad actors get ushered out a lot of doors for a lot of reasons. I find a lot of people in the business more egotistical they they have a right to be, some more sharp elbowed than I would be comfortable being, but bad guys per se? I have experienced almost none.

[Likes2ridefar]

In the twenties, he'd be a eugenics proponent...

Probably not.

[Likes2ridefar]

I don't follow you?

I'm just saying, good luck with population control.

[Saint Vitus]

if you look at growth strictly in the sense of population numbers if we don't do something to curtail it then i don't think climate change or anything else will matter much. If you look at our planet as a closed system which for all practical purposes it is. The basic elements that make us and our stuff up are here already and while some are recyclable many are not and there are no new ones on the way. With that as a given when do we exceed the capacity of our resources to support us? I suspect we are already at a number that can't be supported indefinitely.

If growth includes a growing population and the resources to sustain them it seems logical that at some point there simply isn't enough in a contained system. Too many fish in the tank so to speak.

soylent green is people!!!!!!!!

[1centaur]

Tough to argue against when the company is making profits counted in the billions, the CEO is making 27 million a year and rising, while at the same time wants the skilled workers to take a pay & benefit cuts ~and~ get more tax breaks from the state.William

The CEO's salary and bonus, while more than I would pay if I was a controlling shareholder, is a drop in the bucket on that income statement. If you paid him a dollar it would not change the equation of whether it makes sense to cut costs and improve business climate for the company (the Board theoretically oversees that decision). Billions of gain are sometimes billions of loss in that business (true of the oil business too, where "windfall" profits never seemed linked with giant risks and losses elsewhere in the drilling cycle), and a rational business sustainer will increase its odds of continued success. Airbus is subsidized by taxpayers; airlines buy aircraft based in part on cost; cost in part reflects subsidies; Boeing needs to compete. Nominal profit dollars are not the point, % profits are. What % is enough, on average, over a full multi-year product cycle to keep the company competitive and therefore alive to pay its many workers? Neither you, I, nor the NYT knows that. If I were the CEO, I'd err on the side of too much given the downside. Then again, I would not ask for $27MM :)

[Climb01742]

The debate of profit only or profit plus some soft societal considerations is an eternal one, or at least as eternal as going back to my business school education. Always the fear is that not profit maximizing may mean being taken out by somebody who does, another reflection of what I talked about elsewhere in this thread for people or cultures.

Ideally, I think companies can take their foot off the gas a little bit and do some good without weakening themselves to the point of extinction. That is what Starbucks does, and really any company that makes a show of its social conscience. They are gambling their future and the futures of their workers that they can afford to not maximize. The stronger they are the easier it is to be generous because they risk less. Just as a lot of top end Wall Streeters give a ton to charity after elbowing their way to the top, so big companies may have not been very generous before being exemplars of a new way when they dominate.

i think you make acting in accordance with a larger vision seem too risky, as though responsibility imperils a company. speaking from experience in my small corner of business, i once turned down a very lucrative job working on a cigarette account when my bank balance was in 4 figures. and later, we turned down the chance of working on a campaign for an oil company and one to sell sketchy toys to kids on TV. i claim nothing noble, i just wanted to be able to look myself in the mirror and believe that my ethics were more than words. a famous adman years ago said, a principle's not a principle until it costs you money. who knows if we do any good in life, but i do think there are moments when we can choose not to do harm.

[ptourkin]

.

[1centaur]

It's a cost. If it's not much of a cost it's not very risky; if it's a lot of cost it's more risky. When you run a marathon to win, do you slow down a little to enjoy the view? Sometimes you could and still win, sometimes not. The owners of a business should decide if that's a risk they are willing to take. A lot of what corporations do is token. If they thought their only mission was to pay their workers more than they could, give them great benefits and a fantastic guaranteed pension, they would go out of business in many cases and thereby give them nothing because other companies would not be spending their resources that way. It's a difficult balancing act and some do it better than others.

[Kirk007]

So it seems that many here have a gloomy view of the future, and surely the business leaders of our biggest most influential businesses don't have their heads completely in the sand. Yet, if the prevailing wisdom/culture is that you can never let off the gas lest you get eaten by a competitor, and as a result we cannot do anything meaningful about climate change as a result, isn't the only logical conclusion that we are intentionally, knowingly rushing to our own demise because the collective business community (humanity?) will neither acknowledge nor deal with long term risk, focusing only on the immediate short term risk of losing a competitive edge? And if that is the case, isn't that truly and sadly insane?

And if this is the case, then we as a society/species truly are, as the author of the Op-Ed states "already dead" which then becomes a self perpetuating rationale to either do good by others or to maximize short term pleasure and profit (apparently the prevailing business wisdom). So much for being "special" due to our opposable thumbs and intellectual prowess. We're no better than any other species that outruns its carrying capacity!

[1centaur]

preamble - more humanity than business. Much of the world's population has not got theirs yet, and won't let some Western scientists tell them they can't, while Westerners with prospects who wish to save will not want to shoulder the globe's burden semi alone.

Let's take man-driven global warming as a given, and further that man can prevent those 3 degrees from happening with some certainty. There are two ways to make that happen:

1) Daddy knows best, we know what's best for you kids, we're honest and good hearted people (not to mention smarter than you and right-minded) and we're going to have to make your lives significantly worse for a few decades but boy will it be worth it, 'cause that egghead consensus is SO settled and you know those guys are always right.

or

2) I am the President and we are going to have a national debate with all sides fully represented 2x a week on TV and live streamed on what is happening, why it is happening, what will happen if we don't change, and what it will cost you for it to change, because that is the only way to get national consensus for the pain we will have to take and to get past the rationales of all those who don't believe this is necessary. We are a nation divided in many ways, but on this issue we need to stand together or millions of people will die. When the polls show 85% belief in the scientific consensus and the costs to stave off that awful future, we will start to take the necessary steps to reduce significantly our contribution to global warming and will use all avenues to persuade other major powers to do the same. Nothing on my agenda is as important as this, but I will not ask for your sacrifice, and the sacrifices of generations to come, without your consent.


The thought of debating what YOU have decided is settled science and blindingly obvious may rankle, but it's the silent many who don't agree that are the issue when the nature of current political division makes every argument possibly freighted with the emotion of personal flaws. Only full sunlight can work down the dissent. 52% of the voting population just won't generate the kind of consensus that sweeps away foot draggers and their lobbyists. It would take huge effort to make a conclusion unavoidable in this society, but if the problem requires massive sacrifice then I guess huge effort is the road to take. Arrogant people dismissing skeptics with a supercilious tone just won't get it done.

[zap]

Some interesting reading here.

http://www.lomborg.com

[Kirk007]

The thought of debating what YOU have decided is settled science and blindingly obvious may rankle, but it's the silent many who don't agree that are the issue when the nature of current political division makes every argument possibly freighted with the emotion of personal flaws. Only full sunlight can work down the dissent. 52% of the voting population just won't generate the kind of consensus that sweeps away foot draggers and their lobbyists. It would take huge effort to make a conclusion unavoidable in this society, but if the problem requires massive sacrifice then I guess huge effort is the road to take. Arrogant people dismissing skeptics with a supercilious tone just won't get it done.

Well, there are less and less who think the case hasn't been made - the majority in every state in the Union now think it is real and we've made it accordingly to recent Stanford study.

And all those Westerners who won't be satisfied until they get there's - well if China is an example of the quest for" getting theirs" then they are also getting significantly shorter life spans for many from industrial pollution - we'll see how the "we all want what you got" strategy plays out. Less us saying no and more the immediate feedback of where that strategy is leading. And there's a few Island goverments (see Phillipine's UN climate change rep. - http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/12/world/europe/poland-philippines-sano-cop/) who are more concerned with climate change than "getting theirs; of course Fox News dismisses this and responds that what these nations really need are more fossil fuels! - http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/11/15/foxs-perino-philippines-needed-more-fossil-fuel/196914 - climate change be damned.

A true rationale debate by the POTUS? Sure bring it on but we both know it will never happen. Full sunlight? Tough to do when those bringing the sun have a trifle of the resources of those creating the fog. Vested corporate interests and human interests in Congress would squash and/or distort such a notion beyond all recognition. Do you really think interests like the fossil fuel industry would stand aside and/or present undistorted points of view? Fox News et. al would have a field day. Balanced news reporting would give every crackpot dissenter equal "weight" with legitimate science (and I'll even give you the possibility of a legitimate science question - crackpots on both sides would get equal time). Mass confusion would be the rule of the day. What politician in America has the guts to do this? What is the catalyst that generates the massive effort that you see it taking to reach overwhelming consensus? Perhaps a dozen super typhoons or the equivalent hitting America's shores - maybe that would do it.

Maybe, maybe if we had term limits, enough politicians would see beyond their self interest to be guided by truth and higher ethics than self interest but we aren't anywhere near that. No, absent a steady onslaught of catastrophic events, I don't seen anything happening until the $$ supporting the skeptics stops flowing, not until the largest multi-national corporations decide that combatting climate change is in their interest, will our politics change sufficient for any meaningful action. And absent a clear economic case, it seems unlikely those corporations will change their tune in time. If consumers stop supporting them, then they may change their tune.

I think we will only see meaningful change when there is a swell of grassroots pressure directly on business, not government. That will take not only the majority believing, but caring enough to take action. Neither our government nor our business community will ever voluntarily react soon enough on its own. And I fear that the masses won't mobilize until after the point when substantial harm is inescapable. Absent the dreamed for technological solution, I don't see any meaningful chance of "us" getting out of this with anything that resembles a good outcome. Do you?

But are you sure arrogant people with a supercilious tone won't get it done? Seems to work pretty well for Bill O'Reilly et. al. on advancing their agenda.

P.S. Yes its a cold, rainy day in Seattle and I'm procrastinating on going to the gym....

[1centaur]

Arrogant supercilious people appeal to their own base but don't win arguments. On both sides.

My belief in debate is based on the presumption of conclusive scientific proof on each issue. The reason we're not getting further on climate change issues is that the argument goes like this: thousands of scientists believe one thing and you don't? You're an idiot or a shill....But what about this theory and that theory and this data problem and that dubious behavior by scientists?...Settled science, don't you get it loser?

This is what people on the outside of it hear, so they just tune out and move on, thereby not applying pressure inside and outside the boardroom. If the pro warming camp has such an easy case, it needs to go against the weak case in a public forum that is spotlighted by the President so it dominates the news cycle for weeks or months. Mainstream media would eat that stuff up.

If the Dems win in '14 and '16 and just jam carbon this and that down everyone's throat while extracting cash from their bank accounts in utility bills and at the gas pump and hey, subsidizing the poor's carbon tax by taking ever more from those rich who just never pay their fair share, then the counter data and theories will just play out there with the economic burden and risk the whole thing being retracted on the next election cycle. People who really believe in something other than winning need to understand why winning can lead to losing. I've seen it many, many times.

[Marz]

Let me state upfront that I'm what many would view as an environmentalist -- We reduce, re-use, and recycle, carpool when possible, avoid unnecessary trips, have programmable thermostats, timers to shut off things that use electricity, etc.

But, when thinking about trying to solve global warming, it is extremely (!) important that one considers the economic implications. Almost all of the "problems" that societies want to solve, e.g., health care, education, infrastructure, poverty, etc., require substantial amounts of money to solve. If societies adopt policies that substantially hamper economic growth, then they in effect leave themselves with small economic wealth in the future to help solve problems. And sadly, many policies that countries adopt in the name of fighting global warming seem to be misguided ones that will negatively impact economic activity and growth. Do we really want to have a cooler climate but much less wealth to solve society's problems?

A carbon tax with money rebated to citizens would seem to be the simplest solution that would avoid much of the distortions created by other policies. Imagine a simple experiment in which gasoline goes to $8/gallon because of the tax. Almost certainly, many people would start to carpool. Put 3 people into one car who used to take separate cars, and it is equivalent to tripling the mpg of the car. At $8/gallon perhaps someone doesn't take an unnecessary trip by car--that is equivalent to an infinite increase in mpg for that "trip." Airfares would rise dramatically causing people to vacation more locally. And so on.

The punchline is that the economic effects matter very much and there are better ways to achieve carbon reduction than what many are currently doing.

See below for some interesting reading.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/business/a-carbon-tax-that-america-could-live-with.html?_r=0

"A carbon tax with money rebated to citizens..."

We currently have such a system in Australia, but the new government wants to abolish it.

[Kirk007]

People who really believe in something other than winning need to understand why winning can lead to losing. I've seen it many, many times.

The only winning end games here are if the leading climate scientists predicting the current temperature gains are proven completely wrong and we do little, hence not causing the economic damage you postulate. Or if you're wrong about the economic impact preventative measures would have, and the climate scientists are wrong.

If they (climate scientists) are right and the deniers wrong, there is no good outcome even if the debate and presidential handling went as envisioned by your scenario, and everyone becomes true believers. Why doesn't this work? Well, those leading scientists believe right now that the genie is largely out of the bottle. If they are right, then no matter what we do, we are going to see devastating change in the next 50-100 years if not much, much sooner. Ocean acidification is, without some miracle technology, going to get worse and worse for the next 50 years even if we cut GHG emission levels to 1960s levels tomorrow. The lag time between our response and a reduction of climate change impacts will be too long for people to keep faith with those efforts. How many years of economic sacrifice (assuming you are correct about the economic impact) do you think the converted are going to absorb while at the same time seeing either a deteriorating environment ( or at best no real improvement) before they accept that the future is set, that the sacrifices are not making a difference, and demand relief from the economic sacrifice? Look at the 70s - massive support for environmental regulation; laws and rules that started to be undermined in less than a decade. Those burdened by new climate change laws will not stop fighting, and they will come back with a vengeance, as they have with regard to current regulations whether environmental or related to a social safety net.

Mitigation efforts for GHG emissions will at best change to adaptation - building of physical barriers, armoring the borders, policies to protect us from the displaced. Meanwhile, third world countries will be pummeled by climate, too many people, too little food and water and rampant disease. We will try to isolate ourselves but will we succeed? And lest we forget, climate change is a symptom not a root cause. World populations will continue to grow rapidly (absent catastrophic events like global pandemic). We will be putting our hopes in geo-engineering and other technological strategies unknown to us today as there will be little else to turn to.

Enjoying our bikes, our families, and living in the moment is a very rational approach at this point in our history; perhaps the only rationale choice at most points in history. What one chooses to do with their time and money and its impact on future generations, well that's a personal choice. At the end of the day, if the climate scientists are right, I'm not sure its going to matter much, certainly not for us here on the forum, and probably not for our children. If the climate change scientists are right, well we had our chance with climate change, but it was a few decades ago.

If they are wrong, and I very much hope that they are (blind faith?), then we have only over population and a host of other issues to worry about; apocalyptic scenarios may not apply, and on some of these issues we can still make a difference. In any event, the original op-ed may be worth a re-read.

[1centaur]

If we are past the point of stopping the x degrees by the end of the century, then the discussion needs to turn to stopping the y degrees after that AND the cost and nature of mitigation/adaptation. I don't sense that this is mainstream global warming talking points currently. I am still hearing mostly the same stuff I heard a decade or so ago. If the truth is as you have just stated but the talking points are not there, it will feel like there's another agenda (which in fact it does), and that agenda includes a "winning" element against "deniers." Best to align truth and talking points if genuine achievement is the goal.

[Kirk007]

I personally know a lot of people in the climate change argument that are leading the charge - not big Al, but his foundation's folks, Jim Hansen, who has written affidavits supporting lawsuits that I have worked on regarding climate change, Bill McKibben, Van Jones and the list goes on. I don't sense, anywhere, this "winner" vs the "deniers" motivation you are talking about.

I don't know anyone who is in this as an intellectual exercise or as an opportunity to win in a personal or intellectual sense. I think the primary motivation is fear. Fear for family, fear for living things, fear for humanity. It is not profit motivated, unless you draw equivalence between profit and survival. Other motivations include a moral and ethical belief that we owe a sacred obligation to both future generations of humans and all living things with whom we share the earth, and the earth itself. Speaking for the collective I know who are in this game, "we" could all be profiting in the capitalist sense much more handsomely in private business than the non-profit world.

You don't hear scientists speaking in an unvarnished way about what they truly believe because of your very reaction - well, if this century is screwed lets just accept and move to mitigate and adopt for 2120. The fear is that this reaction will result in any real action getting kicked further down the road, and the circle continues unbroken. If we stop asserting that we can make a real difference through immediate action for this generation and our kids and grandkids, then the fear is that it truly will become a game over situation. And, the scientists could be wrong, there could be some feedback loop overlooked or that behaves differently that gives us more breathing room if we slow the train down before it truly hits runaway speed.

Yesterday I spent 60 minutes in the 52 degree water of Puget Sound. Underneath the waves is a remarkable world, inhospitable to man absent a lot of technological gear that allows us brief visits. Yet the most remarkable physical features of this dive site is human debris, including a white Kohler toilet that is now the home of numerous invertebrates. How did the toilet get there? What makes it ok to use oceans, lakes, streams, gullies as our modern garbage pits?

The most remarkable biological observation of the day, other than the armies of shrimp that come out from under their seaweed/kelp like cover when you approach, as if they are sentries ready to repel the alien invader, was the starfish.

Everywhere in the dive site, and others in Puget Sound, starfish are dying. Limbs are disintegrating into gooey masses that then fall off. Pilings that used to be literally covered in purple starfish and white and orange sea anenomes are now stained with a white goo oozing from the few starfish still clinging, the piling below stained the same way you fir and other evergreens are sometimes stained by pitch streaming down the sides. The ocean flow was littered by the exoskeletons. We don't know why - yet. Ocean acidification? Increased radiation levels from Japan? A new bacteria or parasite that is thriving in the changing ocean chemistry? I mention this only to point out that everywhere, out of site to most of us, we are radically changing this planet in ways we don't even realize. Our oceans and ocean ecosystems are is horrible shape but for most it is out of sight, out of mind, and no one wants to hear the truth about how things really are. Same with climate change.

And as we debate, the strife between nations grows: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/world/growing-clamor-about-inequities-of-climate-crisis.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131117&_r=0

[1centaur]

You and I know we will not fully agree, but I respect the intellectual honesty you bring to the table.

May I suggest in closing that the "denier" label never be used again by people whose only goal is the betterment of the world, neither people nor energy companies are generally evil, and that telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth while looking for win-wins up and down the income strata is the best way to achieve societal change that sticks.

[Louis]

looking for win-wins up and down the income strata is the best way to achieve societal change that sticks.

I don't think the folks living in Nauru or in a number of different places around the globe would have quite as rosy a view of the process or the decisions currently being made in Warsaw, or in the typical American household or boardroom or in Chinese government offices.