Global Warming

[bullus_hit]

putting all that aside, carbon offsetting is not a real solution in my view, it was a good initial initiative to get people thinking.

Agree, but getting people to think about outsourcing their responsibilities isn't the way to go. I'm particularly cynical about emission trading schemes because it shifts the burden onto others, it's a bit like using intermediaries as a dumping ground for nuclear waste. I also question our ability to police such initiatives, particularly when corruption is rife in many developing nations. A pollution tax is the best way to go, like you said, accounting for externalities is a critical driver in maintaining economic integrity.

 

[bullus_hit]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/22/3099141/climate-denying-groups-funding/#

A cool 1 billion being spent on climate change denial, imagine if these companies decided to invest the same amount into genuine R&D.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

The group became stuck when unexpected weather forced their ship into heavy ice and since becoming stranded have sat through an intense blizzard which appears to have increased the build up of ice around them.

One of the scientists onboard, Chris Turney, said the team had been attempting to update the scientific records made by Mawson's group a century ago -- records which he said have become crucial in charting signs of global warming.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/131228/rescue-stranded-antarctic-ship-stalls

A touch ironic. If all else fails I'm sure global warming will come to the rescue!

 

[tigersnake]

anyone see the comments from Abbot's big wig advisor? Monkton-esque. It's not looking good. Not only is the government's policy on the big issue of climate change retrograde, deluded (I don't use that word lightly) and cynical (money to their farmer constituents), but Abbot's series of terrible and very concerning individual decisions, mining port developments in the GBR, cranking up logging of ancient forests in Tas, and the big one, handing back environmental approval of large projects to the states, is extremely challenging to this optomist.

The fundamental problem as I see it (apart from the obvious intractible one of the capitalist growth model which relies on more people consuming more resources to survive), it that big projects are approved in isolation. Under law, other existing or proposed projects are not able to be considered when considering the project at hand. So the four large port developments on the GBR may have been able to be developed in isolation and the reef could have absorbed the damage (that is highly debateable), but the four together will cause damage to the point where the survival of the Reef under threat. It enables, and encourages, death by 1000 cuts. Or in this case, death by 4 large machete wounds.

 

[Giardiasis]

The fundamental problem as I see it (apart from the obvious intractible one of the capitalist growth model which relies on more people consuming more resources to survive)

It is erroneous to describe the current "model" as capitalist. The current system is a far cry from a true free market economy, especially considering that the whole banking system is socialist policy that Karl Marx actually argued for.

 

[tigersnake]

It is erroneous to describe the current "model" as capitalist. The current system is a far cry from a true free market economy, especially considering that the whole banking system is socialist policy that Karl Marx actually argued for.

It is not in tiniest smidgeon erroneous. We currently live in a capitalist system G-man, full stop. Yes there are market failures, corruption, socialist elements, imperfections, faults and contradictions, unintended consequences everywhere, its a highly complex beast, but it is not only erroneous to argue we don't have a capitalist system, its untenable to do so in any non-extremist forum.

Capitalism is amazing in its ability to generate wealth, but there is no such thing as a free lunch. To transition to the next phase of capitalism the current market failures that result in environmental destruction have to addressed.

As an aside, you're constantly arguing that this mythical beast of 'pure' or 'real' or unbridled or whatever capitalism has never been implemented, and thats true for all sorts of valid and rational reasons, but the same can be said for Marxism. The 'pure' Marxist model of socialism has never been implemented, not even close. Its always been hijacked by an evil nutcase. I'm not saying that is what I'd like to see, (personally I think the answer lies in a green capitalist model, and Karl Marx loved rampant indutrial economic growth and profits) just making the point that the opposite argument can also be made. The right always say 'communism/ socialism has been tried and has failed', it ain't necessarily so, its far more complex than that.

 

[Giardiasis]

It is not in tiniest smidgeon erroneous. We currently live in a capitalist system G-man, full stop. Yes there are market failures, corruption, socialist elements, imperfections, faults and contradictions, unintended consequences everywhere, its a highly complex beast, but it is not only erroneous to argue we don't have a capitalist system, its untenable to do so in any non-extremist forum.

While it depends on your definition of capitalism, I think it is a grave error to attribute the characteristics of free market capitalism as the cause of the problems we face with our current system. It is only those shreads of free enterprise and trade that remain that provide us any sort of improvement in our standards of living. It is important to see that the socialist, and facist policies as the cause of the current malaise, both economic and environmental.

 

[Giardiasis]

http://www.acting-man.com/?p=27855

 

[bullus_hit]

While it depends on your definition of capitalism, I think it is a grave error to attribute the characteristics of free market capitalism as the cause of the problems we face with our current system. It is only those shreads of free enterprise and trade that remain that provide us any sort of improvement in our standards of living. It is important to see that the socialist, and facist policies as the cause of the current malaise, both economic and environmental.

So the obsession with economic growth is the fault of socialism? Gimme a break, if policy makers were more concerned with sustainable economics and other factors such as maintaining a healthy environment, then we may not be facing a new epoch of mass extinction and unfettered degradation. We need to change the goal posts and look beyond the balance sheet. To do so is living in some abstract wonderland. It reminds me of the classic Police song 'Spirits in a Material World', one of my personal favourites.

 

[Giardiasis]

What exactly is your understanding of economic growth?

 

[bullus_hit]

What exactly is your understanding of economic growth?

My understanding is that nothing in the universe can grow forever, that is the plain and simple truth. Yet, economics has decided that in a finite world, we can suddenly pretend that anything and everything is infinite. Do you also subscribe to the theory that economic growth can continue go on forever?

As an aside, it's interesting that when I was studying economics at university, the kid that stuck their hand up and asked why we don't just print more money was often scoffed at (much in the same way Pauline Hanson was blasted away for uttering similar thoughts). Well, now that this has suddenly been given a fancy new term, 'quantitative easing' I believe, it's suddenly new age orthodoxy. In my opinion, this puts paper money in the same realms as Bit Coins.

 

[Giardiasis]

Again what exactly do you mean by economic growth. Growth of what?

 

[bullus_hit]

Again what exactly do you mean by economic growth. Growth of what?

GDP - is there another measure by which you subscribe?

 

[Giardiasis]

Well personally I think GDP is a worthless measure. See http://mises.org/daily/770 for a good discussion regarding GDP.

If you don't agree that GDP is worthless, or you don't have another measure of economic growth, then there probably isn't much point discussing further.

 

[bullus_hit]

Well personally I think GDP is a worthless measure. See http://mises.org/daily/770 for a good discussion regarding GDP.

If you don't agree that GDP is worthless, or you don't have another measure of economic growth, then there probably isn't much point discussing further.

Typically evasive and high and mighty Gia, as I posted in the previous post, if you have an alternative measure then feel free to share it with us. I've already stated why I object to GDP being the panacea for global economics, and like it or not, most governments still use it as a primary measure of success. As far as contemporary economics is concerned, it is the elephant in the room, and something which will be exposed as pure folly. I note that China, the undisputed growth kings of the world, are now grappling with environmental issues on a mass scale. Air pollution alone claims half a million lives a year. This is effectively what I'm getting at, does growth necessarily equate to better living standards or are we simply being conned by the big wigs? What are your personal thoughts?

 

[Giardiasis]

It's not evasive, you are making the claim that capitalism supports the notion that growth can go on forever. If you equate that to a measure I believe to be meaningless, then obviously there is no point bashing our heads against the wall. It hasn't gotten us anywhere before now has it?

However I do find it curious that you chose China as an example to identify falts with capitalism.

 

[bullus_hit]

It's not evasive, you are making the claim that capitalism supports the notion that growth can go on forever. If you equate that to a measure I believe to be meaningless, then obviously there is no point bashing our heads against the wall. It hasn't gotten us anywhere before now has it?

However I do find it curious that you chose China as an example to identify falts with capitalism.

I'm referring to capitalism in it's present form, you obviously have your own notions of the 'perfect model', and to be perfectly frank, I can't stand the false dichotomy of socialism versus capitalism. China being a perfect case in point. My arguments stem from clear market failures, externalities such pollution being a case in point.

It is important to see that the socialist, and facist policies as the cause of the current malaise, both economic and environmental.

Care to elaborate? To me this is the domain of a fundamentalist who spouts off generalities without coughing up any evidence. We can hide behind theories of markets without governments, but they are indeed only theories which will never see the light of day. Time to get topical Gia, time to accept that society has and will continue to have some degree of centralisation. Even in a corporate organisation, hierachies exist, it's just the nature of the beast.

 

[tigersnake]

Yeah we've had this debate before, its back in the vaults somewhere. As far as I'm concerned, and the vast majority of economists and people with a working knowledge of economics, G's model is a mythical beast, a phantom. It takes no account of complexities and power differentials. It would be just as plausible to say if we had a capitalist system in an alternative universe. I personally find it cultish, but thats just my opinion.

The capitalist system, the real one not Gs Harry Potter version, relies on economic growth to survive, at the moment, economic growth means greater and ever increasing inputs of raw materials and energy to produce ever increasing amounts of stuff for ever increasing amounts of people with ever increasing amounts of money. Anyone who can't see where that is headed, at least in the short to medium term, is misinformed or in denial. All the data backs this up. Amounts of land cleared each year, depleting fish stocks, rising carbon pollution etc etc.

What I do accept of Gs assertions, is that if we do end up in a world with no ecology or wilderness, whether its an ordered controlled environment or a wasteland, thats what the people want. Their choices have led to that outcome.

 

[bullus_hit]

What I do accept of Gs assertions, is that if we do end up in a world with no ecology or wilderness, whether its an ordered controlled environment or a wasteland, thats what the people want. Their choices have led to that outcome.

Tragedy of the commons in all it's glory. The economic growth junkies have signed up to one of the biggest Ponzi schemes of all time. It's so obviously flawed yet paradoxically, most still buy it hook line and sinker. I've often wondered whether the system needs to collapse completely before people get the message, global warming may even be the catalyst for such change. From an Australian perspective, we're seeing the mercury nudge 50 on a regular basis, is this really what people want or are we in complete denial? Switching on the Fujitsu won't stop the roads from melting and the bushfires from raging, not to mention the destruction of biodiversity. Our connection with the environment has always been tenuous at best. And with the Reef and the old growth forests now in the firing line, one wonders when the carnage will stop.

Perhaps the biggest tragedy of all is that many still believe caring for the environment is somehow associated with radicalism, it's a perverse viewpoint and has driven many scientists to the brink. Even farmers and environmentalists can't reconcile their differences, despite having plenty of common ground and vested interests.

 

[evo]

Yet, economics has decided that in a finite world, we can suddenly pretend that anything and everything is infinite.

Economics is a field of study like psychology, architecture or sociology; with many disparate views. It hasn't decided anything.