In the wake of the failure of the Copenhagen Climate Change conference, we’re starting to see some more thoughtful analyses which go beyond the proximate causes of the imbroglio to gesture to more structural factors. Robert has already cited George Monbiot’s recent blog post.
I’d like to take a look at a couple of other articles. Naomi Klein, writing for The Guardian, argues that Barack Obama was at fault. Anticipating criticism about the difficulties of getting anything through the US Senate, she nevertheless claims that Obama missed several opportunities to put climate change response much higher on the agenda, at a time when he still had massive political capital. There’s a real sense in which this is true, but Klein doesn’t search for the underlying reasons why Obama has acted the way he has, which go beyond the reflex accusations of being a sell-out (‘triangulating wolf in the guise of a liberal sheep’, you know the drill).
We’ve all been somewhat misled by the Obama as Bush antidote theme. George W. Bush’s regime, in many ways, was the last gasp of an Imperial ideology of leading the free world, or of making war on bits of it to make them free. The collapse of the conjuring trick which was supposed to pay for all this, and the increasing realisation that the US couldn’t make its desire reality purely by will (expressed through military force and propaganda) determines the conjuncture which Obama inherited. There’s a tendency to look to him as if he will actually give flesh to the bones of the carcass of the myth of American benevolence. But, in fact, his task is managing America’s decline. Thus, his actual behaviour, as opposed to his flights of rhetoric, demonstrates that America is now a nation among nations, looking to protect its own national interest rather than project some sort of salvational salve for the world’s woes. That should have been evident from Copenhagen.
It’s important to look beyond the quotidian, and understand that the sands of political economy were actually shifting beneath the feet of the delegates and negotiators at COP. That also implies that assumptions about a future based on straight extrapolation from the position pre-Copenhagen may be as dangerous as the assumption that climate change is itself a linear process, rather than the interaction of many complex factors and systems, human and non-human. While I don’t necessarily accept all that he argues, that necessary perspective is well displayed by ecological economist Brian Davey, writing at Open Democracy. With permission, under a Creative Commons licence, I’ve reproduced his piece over the fold. It provides much food for thought, as we come to grips with our collective responsibility to shape the planet’s future.
[Please click through to the original article for hyperlinks and diagrams.]
Copenhagen was supposed to be the last chance for humanity on an assumption that emissions in the future would continue to grow as they have in the past. But what if the future is one of contraction and disorganisation anyway?
In the lead up to Copenhagen it was repeatedly said that this was “the last chance to save the climate”. This idea was constructed on an assumption about “business as usual”. If emissions continue to grow on current trends then, with little time left to put on the brakes and decarbonise the global economy at a sufficient rate, the task appears to be totally unfeasible.
With many scientists credibly arguing that we are already over the safe limit for greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere this may be true. There is now a good case that we need to go beyond decarbonising in the economy to actually finding technologies and processes to take CO2 that is already in the atmosphere out again.
So is the situation now quite hopeless? Perhaps so… but perhaps not. A reason for being at least a little bit hopeful is the questionable assumption of what “business as usual” will be like. The common assumption is that the global economy will continue to grow as it has done over the last few decades. But is this assumption true in the light of peak oil and peak gas?
In the last year global emissions did not grow. As the economy slid into a recession emissions fell with them. One way of constructing the events of the last year are that rising energy prices played a major role in undermining many peoples ability to service their debts. A reckless financial system was undermined. Of course there was more to the financial crisis and the recession than merely a rise in energy and food prices but that was surely an important part of the crisis.
This problem has not gone away. A few weeks ago the Guardian ran a story about a whistleblower in the International Energy Agency. This person had spilled the beans that the IEA is far more concerned that there will be a near term peak in global oil supplies than it has publicly acknowledged. Apparently the IEA’s spin is so as not to spook the financial markets or to undermine the power of the United States, which is very vulnerable to foreign oil supplies.
The conclusion that we can draw from this is that coming down the tracks there is an energy crunch and/or that, as the global real economy picks up, energy prices will continue rising. Rising oil prices will be good news to companies building follies in the Persian Gulf and in Moscow, but it will be bad news for continued growth in the global economy. It means that business as usual emissions will not be quite the same as projected in some of the IPCC studies.
There is no denying, of course, that the future is unclear. If oil and gas become much more expensive, and suppliers of them become insecure, the temptation to use more coal is enhanced. Coal power and coal to liquid technologies are both extremely CO2 intensive. Without carbon mitigation, for example a successful program of carbon capture and storage, oil and gas depletion could make the climate crisis even worse. As is widely acknowledged, the future potential of carbon capture and storage is unknown. It will certainly be a long time until it is extensively applied.
On the other hand, the rise in energy prices might undermine the economy and therefore investment in coal power. The Kingsnorth power station was doubtless put on hold because of successful campaigning but it was put on hold because of the recession too.
To return to the main point – the narrative about Copenhagen has been about the last ditch chance to prevent a growing economy bringing a climate catastrophe along with it. But what if the future is not one of continued expansion but one of contraction and disorganisation? We have had a recovery in the financial markets over the last year because states have been prepared to underwrite the losses of the financial sector. And the financial sector has gone back to its old speculative ways with very little in the way of regulation or control being imposed. In the background there is good reason to believe that the energy crisis has only just begun. Unlike the climate crisis which happens with a considerable time delay, the oil and gas depletion crisis will happen in real time.
There is another reason too to consider that the future will not simply be a projection of the past. One of the most perceptive studies of the response of governance systems to “stress urges” is that of the historian and archaeologist Joseph Tainter. In his study The Collapse of Complex Societies he argues that it is not war, crop failure, disease or economic crisis that in and of themselves create conditions for the collapse of societies, it is the inability of the governing, management, and technical arrangements of the society to cope with these stress surges. This inability to cope arises because they have simply become too complex. Any and every society tries to respond to its problems with increasing complexity but the returns to that complexity decline over time.
Is there reason to believe that our society is already too complex in Tainter’s sense? I believe that there is and, what is more, the withdrawal of energy from the complex arrangements of modern society due to passing the oil peak will make the situation even worse. The future is likely to be one of considerable disorganisation.
What is the evidence for this view? Let us take some examples. In the middle of October a report appeared on the Bloomberg news service with a headline that read: “Nations leave 91% of Green Stimulus Funds Unspent”. It began as follows:
The US, China and major economies around the world are still holding about 91% of the $177 billion in stimulus money promised for clean energy development because most projects have not been evaluated, a report showed. Administrative hurdles remain to the majority of developers, with just 9% of the total funds having been disbursed from economic stimulus programs. “The process of disbursement has been a sobering experience,” said Anna Czajkowska, an analyst and author of the study.
One has to ask therefore, whether governments are actually capable of delivering “Green New Deals”. Many people assume that if money is allocated to something then that is all that needs to be done. Of course this is not true. Expenditure has to be administered according to clear criteria. In new and innovative fields where the expertise and capacity does not exist that is no small thing. Some things are murderously complicated to administer, especially in fields where the bureaucrats have no experience or expertise.
In general climate policy is proving extraordinarily complex in its delivery. This is partly because fossil fuel use is, directly and indirectly, a feature of virtually every aspect of our society. The number of stakeholders is enormous. Thus, when we take, for example, the European Union’s emissions trading system, the political accommodation of a mass of vested interests, has led to an extraordinarily complicated arrangement. There are multiple loopholes and get out clauses.
In the United States we see a similar problem in the cap and trade system going before the US Congress. So far the bill is 1,428 pages long (and growing). This complexity is partly the result of “regulatory capture” whereby multiple corporate lobbies have an influential hand in crafting policies to suit themselves.
There is a similar problem with climate policies related to land use and deforestation. The conditions on the ground are nowhere the same as anywhere else. But one cannot have a policy adapted to each location.
If the policies at national or European level are convoluted, then how much more complex would agreeing a global arrangement be? “This is the most complicated deal the world has ever tried to put together,” says Tom Burke, an adviser on climate change to the Foreign Office. “In effect, you’re asking nearly 200 countries to align their energy policies – to create a common world energy policy.” It is hardly surprising that the UNFCC process has been so chaotic.
Then of course if governments do agree specific climate mitigation commitments, they must be able to deliver on those commitments. This is not straightforward. On the surface it seems that the simple way to go about this is to promote a few large-scale engineering projects. Carbon capture and storage has already been mentioned. The other example is nuclear power. Unfortunately, the same problem of declining returns to increased complexity applies in the field of large-scale engineering.
At the time of writing there has been a decision to build 10 nuclear power stations in Britain similar to the one being built in Olkiluoto in Finland. So lets take that as a case study. According to a recent article in the news magazine Der Spiegel there are 4,300 workers from 60 countries working with 700 subcontractors building this “third generation” nuclear power station. The complexity of globalisation is mixed in with the complexity of advanced technology and nuclear power. So what is the result? It is 2,300 million Euros over budget; the scheduled finishing date is now 2012 although it was supposed to be the spring of 2009; there have been 3,000 faults in construction so far. Perhaps worst of all, there is no satisfactory design for the control system of the reactor, so that the developers are in conflict with the Finnish nuclear safety authority.
Worldwide there are 52 nuclear reactors under construction. 13 of these have been under construction for 20 years. 24 have no scheduled completion date. At least part of the problem is that in many countries the staff of nuclear power stations are now coming up for a retirement and there are few new nuclear engineers to replace them. In Britain and in the USA about 40% of the nuclear workforce will retire in the next 10 years. With few to replace them the idea that a massive nuclear program can be developed rapidly and safely is highly questionable.
We are being asked to believe that governments can manage a process from here to 2050 and beyond involving a mass of tough and complex political and economic decisions. To be able to deliver on their commitments they will need enough trained and motivated people; enough political attention and intention; an ability to handle the financial risks over decades; and institutional capacity to develop, disseminate, and service new technologies; sufficient managerial ability; the capacity of the media and political leaders to remain focused on crucial problems; a consensus among voters about important priorities; a sufficient ability to look far ahead to anticipate problems; long runs secure energy and material supplies reserve for investment purposes instead of consumption; an ability to evolve the legal framework; coordination and cooperation with other governments. (Here I draw on Meadows D, Meadows D and Randers J, Limits to Growth. The 30 Year Update, Earthscan 2005, p223.)
In all seriousness one must ask whether this is a realistic prospect. As the world becomes more complex it becomes necessarily more opaque. The more interrelated elements that there are in any given situation the harder it is to trace back the causative influences determining events. At the same time it becomes less easy to predict what the knock-on consequences of an event or an action will be. The creation of unintended side consequences becomes inevitable. The management and steering of complex systems becomes virtually impossible. What really happens is a constant process of knee-jerk responses, a constant process of review and studies from consultants and a public relations facade to hide the underlying chaos.
In large and complex systems, top-down management tends to break down. In the Copenhagen negotiations China was criticised for refusing to be open to external verification of its greenhouse gas emissions. I would speculate that at least one of the reasons is that the Chinese negotiators realised they already have great difficulty in exercising any central control over local and regional administrations and businesses. At the back of their minds they are probably aware they could not accommodate external verification even if they wanted to – at least not without it leading to a great deal of aggravation from largely autonomous local party bosses and their business allies.
For politicians in general the future will certainly be full of distractions dragging them away from the necessary focus on climate priorities. The aforementioned process of complexification is making the banking and financial system extremely difficult to manage. There will be plenty to do “managing” this problem. Clever mathematicians devised financial instruments of such sophistication that no one could value them so the banks lost trust in each other when energy prices took the top off the speculative frenzy. The complexity of the banking system in an internationally networked digital world makes regulation extremely difficult. Yet the finance system is a hub network. If it breaks down, chaos cascades in all directions.
We may yet find that financial chaos breaks out again and has profound effects not only on general economic activity but also on the technological “progress” that we have come to take for granted. Consider how that might come about. After the Lehman Brothers collapse, banks would not issue the letters of credit required for international trade as they did not trust counter-party banks. One reason for the 90% drop in the Baltic Dry Shipping Index was the temporary freezing of such financing.
Thus a re-emergence of financial panic, in the context of financial institutions taking in the deeper meaning of peak oil, is likely to have considerable disruptive effects in world trade. Yet the smooth running of world trade is necessary to the maintenance of the technical infrastructure on which society has come to depend. Just to take one example – a mobile phone requires 22 basic elements in its production. These have to be a sourced quite literally from every continent on the planet. Much energy is expended in long journeys involving mining, transport, trade, manufacturing and retailing operations before and assembled product is available for use. Similar complexity applies to other computer, digital and electronic systems. A prolonged energy shock, creating a financial shock, morphing into a trade shock, would when prolonged eventually lead to a failure to replace phones, computers and so on. After a time the components would start to degrade and, with them, the systems in which they operate. This would of course be slowed down by a long process of scavenging components and recycling their use where this is possible.
One therefore has to ask whether governments, individually and collectively, are losing their power to steer the course of events. Complex multi-dimensional policies are losing their effectiveness. In circumstances of this sort, whatever policies governments adopt must be made simple and overarching and then it must be left to engaged and informed citizens to do the rest. For this citizens must act on their own initiative and will need to support initiatives that go above and beyond the household level.
In the meantime governments will struggle to find simple effective policy instruments and ways of maintaining social cohesion in the face of growing unrest. As governments and large corporations are increasingly seen to fail in the context of energy descent millions of people will be forced into supplementary “self-help” solutions – growing some of their own food, and adapting their lifestyles to power cuts. Governments will need to go with this flow and, ideally, support engaged citizens or they will find themselves working against them.
There are no magic bullets for this situation. The assumption of governments is that there are large scale solutions for large scale problems but this is not so. The problems have to be solved one house, one street, one neighbourhood, one farm, one forest, one region at a time. This will require the active engagement of millions of people as eco-citizens. Well-informed and appropriately skilled citizens will need to act together to develop, protect and maintain their own health and that of their communities. This will be mainly a movement of projects rather than a movement of protest – because a movement of protest will be largely futile. There is a danger that our betters will be seen to have lost the plot. Governments will have mega-deficits and will be forced to choose what to spend money on. Will they put this money into banks, or into largely futile big engineering projects or will they support ordinary people’s efforts to bring back some control into their lives by eco-renovating their homes and neighbourhoods?
Despite everything there are relatively simple policy options that could be implemented when the logjam created by corporate vested interests eases. At a certain stage it may be that an active citizens’ movement will have a lot more clout and governments will be able to base themselves on these movements and act more strongly against carbon corporate interests.
The simplest policy would be to set a rapidly reducing limit on the amount of carbon allowed into the economy by a permit scheme imposed upon the very small number of fossil fuel suppliers. To maintain social cohesion the revenue raised when fossil fuel suppliers have to buy permits to sell would go to the population per capita (‘Cap and Share’). This would channel the carbon revenues to the base of the economy, where it is most usefully applied, helping to fund the process of making houses, gardens and neighbourhoods more eco-efficient.
Ideally governments would support and encourage community-led self-help adapting to energy descent and carbon reduction as well as developing lay expertise. It would channel resources and support to communities and households rather than to mega schemes that are likely to fail.
To conclude, the current discourse about the aftermath of Copenhagen assumes a future that is merely a projection of the past. Nothing could be further from the truth. Humanity has now reached the limits to economic growth. Climate change is just one manifestation of this. Having overshot and overused natural capital humanity stands before turbulent times. The complex governance and management arrangements underpinned by plenty of cheap energy will not be up to dealing with the problems we face. A totally different politics and totally different lifestyles are necessary if humanity is to have any chance of seeing out the century. At the same time the future may yet prove more malleable than we think. Whether this is really a cause for hope after Copenhagen remains to be seen. But let us at least discuss the real issues rather than the banalities of the official narrative.
Update: After Copenhagen II.
The post and excerpt seem pessimistic and rightly so, I’d suggest. What we get is just a continuation of the lazy “do it tomorrow” politics of the last forty years.
But it’s worse now- as the disasters get nearer, with lazinesss comes a sort of unease-bred paralysis of will and policy.
Yes, profoundly disappointing politics ove the last couple of years, btw. Many hoped that with the discrediting of neo con and neo lib a tipping point had finally been reached for the old politics.
And the Obamas and Rudds and other new people, cognisant of realities their close minded elders could or would not acknowledge, were ready, given a public expression of hope for meaningful reform rather than reactionary neolib “reform”to finally move.
Instead the brutes responsible for the GFM were bailed out to the tune of tens of $trillions and lack of action on real ecological issues has been reinforced rather than ended as the politicions bow before the scorched earth threats of big capital.
“We’ve all been somewhat misled by the Obama as Bush antidote theme” – Ahh Mark – therein lies your problem. You’re looking at this through a prism on the fringes. Electing Obama was never about being a Bush antidote anymore than electing Rudd was a Howard antidote – except to a minority of fringe dwellers who saw Bush (and Howard) as evil incarnate. Through the fringe prism, Obama was seen therefore an enemy of the enemy and therefore a friend.
As I commented a number of times on this site at the time of the elections – there is actually not a lot of difference between Bush/Obama or Howard/Rudd – all are relatively mainstream politicians when see from the moderate centre.
In terms of what when wrong at Copenhagen? Well nothing really – what other outcome was possible when putting 170 global leaders in a room together? It’s a common mistake that left-wingers make – the hope that a long chat will result in a consensus amongst rational thinkers. The world just doesn’t work that way. Change requires strong leadership to drive it – that doesn’t come from a group. It’s exactly the same reason why the UN is so ineffectual on most issues.
The only way the climate change is going to be resolved is if the US and China can work out an agreement. Once they’re done – the rest of world will follow. It is fanciful to think that Australia can play a role here – we are a price taker when it comes to climate change.
Let’s hope that the US and China can work out their differences – otherwise we all need to save our dollars to spend on adapting to the effects of climate change.
Andrew
Along with sharing your name, we also share many sentiments. US and China to nut out something, the rest of the world to sign on.
Great post Mark. The Market, short term horizons of democratic governments, lost expertise and training and maddening bureaucracy plus a “growth at all costs” economy and population is as volatile as AGW and probably a major contributor to it.
Andrew at #1
I’m getting fed up with people telling me, as a lefty whatever the hell that means, how and what I think.
I get particularly annoyed when the person making the claim obviously has no idea how I, or whatever random sample of defined lefties they are choosing to categorise, actually think.
And so they, well in this case you, get it totally wrong and having created your little convenient strawman, have done nothing but describe how you think. So please stick to that without telling me how I think.
Cos you don’t know and you got it wrong.
Sorry hannah’s dad – you’re right. I shouldn’t generalise all left-wing voews from what Mark wrote. Let me re-write it -
“We’ve all been somewhat misled by the Obama as Bush antidote theme” – Ahh Mark – therein lies your problem. You’re looking at this through a prism on the fringes. Electing Obama was never about being a Bush antidote anymore than electing Rudd was a Howard antidote – except to you who saw Bush (and Howard) as evil incarnate. Through the fringe prism, Obama was seen therefore an enemy of the enemy and therefore your friend.
As I commented a number of times on this site at the time of the elections – there is actually not a lot of difference between Bush/Obama or Howard/Rudd – all are relatively mainstream politicians when see from the moderate centre.
In terms of what when wrong at Copenhagen? Well nothing really – what other outcome was possible when putting 170 global leaders in a room together? A long chat amongst a crowd almost never results in a consensus amongst rational thinkers. The world just doesn’t work that way. Change requires strong leadership to drive it – that doesn’t come from a group. It’s strong individuals who drive change. It’s exactly the same reason why the UN is so ineffectual on most issues.
The only way climate change is going to be resolved is if the US and China can work out an agreement. Once they’re done – the rest of world will follow. It is fanciful to think that Australia can play a role here – we are a price taker when it comes to climate change.
Let’s hope that the US and China can work out their differences – otherwise we all need to save our dollars to spend on adapting to the effects of climate change.
———
Now you can reflect on my views without being offended by me putting words in your mouth.
Why would I want to reflect on your views?
An interesting point though Andrew, which is not purely the province of left-of-centre people is that dialog can promote cooperation.
In game theory experiments for example, researchers offered four people $20 each. They were offered the option of privately banking the lot or puting all or some of it into a public bank. If they took the latter course, then all the money banked would be matched with a further $1.60 for each dollar publicly banked which would then be divided evenly and returned. In theory, if everyone banked their $20, the eventual return value would be $52 each. In practice, returns were about $32 which showed that people tended to keep about $7.70 and bank the rest, presumably on the basis that others would be more generous and they could free ride.
Interestingly, in variations where the four people were allowed to mingle before deciding to make their choice and were able to discuss what they should do, the pay out went up. People kept less and banked more. Another variation involved different names for the same game. One version, was called “the community game” and the other “the Wall St” game. Guess which one led to higher payouts?
Culture counts for something. Collaboration is part of culture. Facilitate it and you are likely to get better results — and that’s no left-wing fantasy.
On average, people kept abo
Hannah’s dad – because you might learn something? I visit this site every now and then because I’m really interested to hear views which are different from my own. Perhaps I’m just an argumentative old bast%^d but I actually use some of what I learn here to play devil’s advocate with the conservative bunch I usually hang around with.
Fran – yes that’s certainly true. Collaboration and co-operation usually deliver better outcome than ‘going it alone’. But there is a huge difference in the game theory examples you used (where everyone is essentially starting from the same position and get the same outcome) and global politics where most players are starting from radically different positions and the ‘collaboration’ which is being sought will result in major compromises and different outcomes for each player.
Here’s an experiment – If you had four people in the room – person A had $1, B had $5, C had $20 and D had $100.
Scenario 1 – each player keeps all their dollars but by not sharing, there is a 50% chance that they will lose half.
Scenario 2 – they all put their dollars into a shared pool. The pool is then doubled, and each person takes back what they put in plus a quarter of what’s left. However – the catch is that if someone doesn’t put any money in, but at least 2 of the others do – then they still get to take 25% of the doubled surplus.
Let’s see the cooperation there!
Scenario 1 is easy because there’s no downside.
Scenario 2 is a little more complex, but in the end the cost of free riders is small. In ideal circumstances, everyone gets a bonus $31.50, but if only two do the dividend wil, be reduced.
It’s unlikely that the persons with $1 or $5 will try free riding because they have the most to lose if the trade fails and the person with $100 certainly wants it to go ahead because free riding and getting $1.50 isn’t enough of an upside. In fact, given the certainty in the mind of the $100 participant that the $1 participant will enter, the $100 participant has compelling motivation to tip the game into balance. Once the $20 participant realises this, he/she has no reason to free ride since (s)he loses by not participating — $20 + 26.50 rather than $20 + $31.50.
The article cited has placed an emphasis on the phrase ‘business as usual’.
It has shown, through a brief description of the recent/current GFC crisis that to view political events through a prism of nation states is to ignore major loci of power that are involved in national and international decision making processes.
It seems that a consideration of the power of non governmental/national forces has been conveniently ignored, forgotten or at least downplayed when we move from the GFC issue where it was painfully obvious to the Copenhagen/GHG issue where despite still being painfully obvious the media, itself a player in this game, has chosen to concentrate on the personality politics of the ‘leaders’ of individual nations as if they are the only major players.
For example I saw a report, I don’t know how accurate, that there were 2400 lobby groups active in Copenhagen, 2200 of them from the polluter/denialist sector.
So looking at a few spokespersons for nations, the currently elected ‘leaders’, for decisions that have arisen from multiple levels of influence that can cross national borders is too simplistic.
Here in Oz our official ordained political stance re GHGs/Copenhagen is the result of massive compromise between various politically powerful lobby groups which includes local, foreign and multinational interests; players, the most powerful of whom, the polluters, want ‘business as usual’.
Like this, from the article ” for example, the European Union’s emissions trading system, the political accommodation of a mass of vested interests ….”
Which is essentially what they got in Oz.
And similarly, unsurprisingly, thats the result from Copenhagen.
To view the problem as a management based government/leader/nation states issue only is to ignore some fundamentally powerful major players in the game of national, international, and transnational politics.
One or two men [any women?], even if they are named Obama whoever, are essentially insignificant.
Update: After Copenhagen II.
Andrew
That cuts two ways and if your assumption, from your first comment, is that you know how ‘lefty’s” think, then I don’t see much room for communication.
Such would be between you and your strawman version of ‘them leftys’.
Devils advocate gets no one any where, just sets up confrontation by presuming two [only] opposed views, or as in your first comment one only, yours and your stawman.
Now in the spirit of concilation I’ll stop the being annoyed by uni-dimensional viewpoints.
Which is why I wrote my comment above which has nothing about consensus occuring between marginalised persons aka ‘world leaders’.
Really very interesting piece you put up there Mark; by turns – hmm staid isn’t the right word, but something that connotes it – and provocative.
He’s much stronger on ground he’s more familiar with (the more negativist stuff, less so the economic or resource stuff), and I think there are some really valid points, namely: there is no such thing as business-as-usual, the framing of these discourses in the current geopolitical environment etc.
I would argue that his distrust of large scale solutions and complexity is both a little redundant, and almost a little naive about policy in development and practice. What was the New Deal? Goodness, what was the stimulus package or any other number of policy successes over decades and decades?
Whilst I agree that the situation we’re in is unique, so is every situation humanity, states, citizens etc are always in, and thus we may be better equipped to deal with uncertainty than he credits the world for (despite my own personal pessimism re: climate change).
Nonetheless, extremely thought provoking, and the kind of writing and dialogue I would love to see more of, both online, but especially in mass media, if such a thing were possible.
patrickg, yes, it’s a bit of a mixed bag, I agree. I’ve given my reasons for some areas of disagreement on the follow up post I just linked to. But he’s spot on with the fallacy of assuming that ‘business as usual’ can be projected into the future with various adjustments depending on how much temperature change is acceptable. I think the point about peak oil, and the inter-relationship between all this and the global economy, is also a very strong one.
Yeah, I agree. In fact, I would take it one step further and say that ‘Business-as-usual’ itself is an illusion – one that’s vigorously maintained and promulgated as corporeal by vested interests, in both a literal and intellectual sense. I don’t think the concern should be arguing against business-as-usual, per se; time and the world takes care of that anyway – but highlighting the illusion and the interests weaving it – for a principle you can believe in (equality, justice, etc. etc. I’m not afraid to get a little Rawls on this one!) – is vital in my opinion; indeed I would argue it’s a critical part of the democratic project, if such a thing exists.
In effect, to counter the arguments, “we can/should change tomorrow,” or “we don’t need to change,” with: We are changing (we are change). These other people are offer legerdemain; pretending that their change is nothing. Don’t be fooled; the future approaches at the same speed regardless of our efforts, so as a citizen scope, analyse, evaluate and commit. Doing nothing is still doing something. Own your decision and its weight on the world.
@17, we’re on the same page here, I think, patrickg!
Hi Rob,
Thanks for your posts @423 and @463 on the original thread . I now have a much better idea of where you’re
coming from.
From your posts it is plain that you are not particularly interested in the
science of Climate Change. Like Pell, Monckton and MarkL you are only interested
in Climate Change as it intersects your real area of concern,
which in your case is the development of a Leftist One World Government (or
something approaching it) using Climate Change as a rationale.
It is clear that you share MarkL’s views of the Greens/Left i.e. as Fascists
by any other name. (e.g. @469, @442 later insincerely withdrawn) and
your description of the rise of AGW and its appropriation by leftist
totalitarians is pretty much identical to MarkL’s ‘concept capture’ spiel.
There is also more than a hint that you agree with MarkL that AGW is a neo-Pagan
religion (‘dogma’, ‘proselytising’)
It looks like you and MarkL read the same websites. Could you post a few
URLs ? I would like to get your info. first hand rather than the rather
guarded versions you and MarkL drip feed under duress.
Before I begin critiquing your arguments I would like to say that we share
some of the same concerns.
I believe that a One World Government is inevitable
and that when it comes it will be horrific as it will be led by the Anti-Christ.
Like you I believe that the OWG will be built on the UN but unlike you
I do not believe it will come into being as a result of conspiracy, bad science
or any proxy issue like Climate. I believe national governments will willingly
cede authority to the AntiChrist as he will be able to secure significant advances
in World peace, probably by solving the Middle East security issue.
By the way I do not think the UN is currently led by the AntiChrist.
So there you go, I also hold very uncool views for a LP commenter.
Now onto your arguments:
@423
We seem to have reached a terminal impasse. For every AGW authority
you cite, I could cite a counter-authority.
Your line of argument here is specious. An argument is
not invalidated and an impasse not reached because the volume of web pages
pro and con are equal. The next step in mature argument is to examine the
detail of the pro and con arguments.
Your failure to do so indicates that you are unwilling to engage with
the science of AGW, I would suspect because you know that if you did
engage on the science you would be blown away in a very short period
of time…
…as Brian has already done on MWP. You should have the intellectual
honesty to admit it, but apparently don’t. Instead you retreat into the
following…
…the inherent ambiguity of its foundational elements, be they presented
as facts or interprtions. The philosophical reality is that they could
always mean something else.
Which is in short Rob saying “The Facts of AGW science are
irrelevent to me.”
..which is pure hypocrisy on your part because you adduce anti-AGW
scientific data in a Positivist fashion but when those facts are
challenged/refuted you revert to post-modernist argument to deny that
a Positivist approach to AGW science is valid.
You are demonstrating, Rob, the intellectual equivalent of running away
and hiding. Very poor. You wouldn’t get out of first-year Uni in any
course with this style of argument, especially not Philosophy where the
structure of one’s argument is paramount. And you have the termerity to
call AGW ‘a house of cards’ !
Rob, if you want to argue that AGW is invalid on scientific grounds then do so.
If you want to argue that the truth of AGW is unknowable via a post-modernist
technique then do so. But to mix the two is intellectual swill.
The reason you claim an ‘impasse’ in the debate is that an impasse means
all argument has been exhausted and hence ceases. You crave the silence
of impasse because it would mean you no longer have to listen to facts
you know you cannot refute.
Most of the rest of you @423 is equally poor.
You assign statements to Brian he has not made Ah, you will say, but they
aren’t counter-authorities, they’re polemicists, propagandists. and state
personal wishes as fact it [the Climate Change debate] cannot be recovered
to ’science’ and you spend a few paras railing against the hypocrisy of various
categories of people as if this were in the least bit relevant to the issue -
its not, the facts of the science are what is relevant, and those facts you
refuse to discuss and would prefer not to exist. No wonder you pad your spiel
with the irrelevance of ‘person xyz is a hypocrite’.
Then you make an argument from futility:
[The Climate Change Problem is] too big, our capabilities
too slight, our human nature too frail. Copenhagen proved the world cannot even
agree to a position, let alone a course of action – let alone program for
effectively executing such, let alone achieivng such.
This argument is largely pseduocode for your hatred and suspicion of the UN
which you have reviled as possibly the most corrupt and inefficient
organisation ever devised by humanity and have insinuated operates as
a haven for despots.
Criticising the UN also allows you to avoid science for a bit longer, but
you ignore the great effectiveness of UN Agencies when they are permitted to
function as intended. e.g. UNESCO in Immunisation to take but one example.
The UN is underfunded and can only act within the permissions granted to it
by the rich and powerful and is always constrained at the field level by the
whims of the host nation and yet it is extraordinarily effective within those
parameters.
Yes, fallen human nature does limit the UN because any one self-interested
Great Power can paralyse the whole organisation. But as soon as China agrees,
the world will act on Cimate Change. To think this is impossible is merely
your wishful thinking Rob.
So, Rob, in summary I say you are not truly interested in the facts of
Climate Change Science, and in fact run away from them, and that your
arguments against it are a mixture of intellectual swill (the combining of
Positivism with Post-Modernism), wishful thinking, and irrelevance.
Your real concern with AGW is that it will lead to a leftist facist pagan
One World Government (or something very similar) based on the UN,
which you hate.
You can continue your journey toward intellectual honesty by dropping
your pretence of interest in AGW science and being more open
about arguing against the issue that really concerns you – the OWG -
as you have begun to do.
Great comeback, Baraholka. I’ll let your response speak for itself (if the LP moderators will let me).
Baraholka, I didn’t intend that the debate with Rob and MarkL would continue on this thread. I’ll let that comment stand, but I’ll delete any further ones that refer to discussion with those who reject the reality of AGW.
Shorter Mark @19: We’re through with the Robbo Evo Devo PoMo.
Mark -
Sorry, but this thread was one of the listed options at the end of the ‘Crash and Burn’ thread.
Which thread do you want this to go to ?
- Barra
Barra, I think Mark wants to draw a line. This and the other threads are for comments on the aftermath of Copenhagen rather than spurious, and if conducted in the manner heretofore, ultimately pointless arguments about AGW.
I’ve released Rob’s response which is now @ 19. If you can see the discourse going anywhere constructive from here, you are a lot more hopeful than I am.
@22 – Brian is right, Baraholka.
Well, I guess it’s goodbye to LP for another year. The last time I made such a nuisance of myself was around this time a year ago, defending the IDF’s operation against Hamas in Gaza. Then, as now, I found it discomfiting to find how impossible it was to establish a middle ground, a space where we could actually talk from different sides of the fence. Whether that’s the nature of the blogosphere, or political discourse generally, I just don’t know. I suspect it was ever thus, and will forever be. And I can’t deny, however guiltily, that I rather enjoy it.
Thanks, Brian, for your forbearance, which I know I tested sorely. You’ve been a chivalrous sparring partner. But I don’t expect you to publish this comment.
Adios.
Any further comments on this thread really need to be back on topic!
Rob, I plan to put up a post on the politics of climate change tomorrow, in particular focusing on why the AGW denial discourse arises. You’d be welcome to contribute there, insofar as you respond to the post. What I won’t tolerate is endless expressions of ‘doubt’ about the science, or the recitation of Bolt/Plimer talking points. Note again that the express topic of this post has nothing to do with the sort of discussion you appear to want to engage in. It’s not that such a discussion can’t take place, but if it swamps discussions which take as their premise the actuality of AGW, then it is not in fact civil discourse, because it’s an attempt to switch the field of discussion to a fundamentally unproductive space, and a highly political move, at that.
The deniers have made much of the hacked CRU emails, using them to continue alleging a scientific super-conspiracy. I believe that the appearance of this scandal at the same time as Copenhagen was no coincidence, but was engineered by the oil companies. By casting doubt on the science of climate change, the oil companies are influencing public opinion, and therefore promote “inactivism” by Western governments. Deniers avoid the fact that the hacking of the emails was a criminal act. Were to they admit that the hacking was illegal, their cause would be damaged severely. Therefore, I believe it is paramount to get to the bottom of the theft to establish who is behind it. When the criminal basis of the denial movement is uncovered, public opinion will change radically, and governments will be forced into action. What we need more than anything is good investigative journalism.
Baraholka and FDB, I’ve said several times that I don’t want this debate with Rob to continue on this thread, or to have to read meta commentary about the style of argument on the previous thread. I’ve deleted the comments you made which sought to continue it. Please respect my wishes on this, in accordance with the comments policy. Any further comments which are off topic will result in your ability to participate in this site being subject to moderation.
Mark
My apologies.
Rob – if you would like to get in touch via my blog I’ll pass on the comments mark deleted.
Thanks, Baraholka.
Mark I believe you are on the money when you talk about the shifting balance of power (America becoming more of a nation among nations rather than the sole superpower). I think the most interesting thing about Copenhagen was that a completely different dynamic was at play to what we have seen at international negotiations in the past. Developing nations have now become major forces within themselves – witness the role of China, India, Brazil and South Africa. Europe’s power has waned significantly – whereas they were the driving force behind Kyoto they played little role in Copenhagen.
I believe that the days of the U.S, Britain and Europe dictating terms are therefore over. The approach from now on needs to be one of developed nations engaging intensively with developing nations to find common solutions. The assumption pre-Copenhagen that developing nations could be persuaded to put emissions control ahead of social and economic development has been proved spectacularly wrong.
One commenter said that it is now up to the U.S and China. I believe this is overly simplistic. Both of those nations are critical, but an agreement acceptable to them is by no means guaranteed to garner broader support. I think Australia does have a very important role to play. I believe that because there is no clear superpower relationship here, the solution will be a mosaic of regionally based agreements. Australia, as a key developed country in the Asia-Pacific has an important role to play in financing efforts in surrounding developing countries, and in providing technical and other support to gear-up efforts in developing countries. This is not lefty altruism – it is in our strategic interest given that many mitigation measures will be cheaper to implement in developing countries than in Australia, and will help us to achieve our targets. Bringing developing countries online also dilutes mitigation action across a bigger pool, making it more achievable.
Any theories from the denialist camp about these findings, Rob / MarkL? http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/05/2785653.htm
Or is the BOM making it all up, for some nefarious leftist purpose?
Not from me. I am scrupulously observing teh rules.
Now, now, Lefty E. You know perfectly well it’s weather when it’s record heatwaves. It only becomes climate when it’s sudden cold snaps during a northern hemisphere winter. Get with the program!
heh, DI. Sad pre-enlightnement stuff isnt it.
The Taliban, and Climate Denialists – the modern enemies of enlightenment.
I’ve just done up a post at BmL – my thoughts on China’s game at Copenhagen.
After Copenhagen? How about the new developments in car technology being shown right now in Detroit?
Fully-electric sporty cars by BMW and Audi. Cheaper than the Tesla, and more practical.
More hybrids by VW, Honda, Toyota.
Not just concept cars but planned production models – limited availability this year and wider retail in the next couple of years.
To hell with the politics. Let’s just do it.
Quite right Elise. All the talk about “legally binding targets” and arguments re whether to aim at 350 or 450 ppm were a diversion that focused everyone’s mind on how to minimize the economic damage they might be exposed to.
Could have been a lot more productive to focus on things that a lot of countries might agree to. Things that made sense no matter what the truth of AGW or things that may actually save money such as saving the cost of a new power station by using power more efficiently.
Given the looming oil shortage agreeing to use regulation to limit the average consumption of new cars seems a no brainer. As you say,
JohnD @38, speaking of “economic damage”, is anyone keeping track of:
- The cost of all this bushfire monitoring and manning (current and projected)
- The cost of lost worktime, for people who live in the Code Red areas and obey the request to leave for the duration (current and projected)
- The cost of lost worktime, for the train service failures during heat waves (current and projected)
- The cost of additional medical support and logistical support for the elderly and infirm during heat waves (current and projected)
- The projected cost of lost tourism due to the southward progression of box jellyfish into Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast tourism precincts? Apparently a high risk if we get even a 0.5 degree increase in water temperature.
The costs are starting to mount quite rapidly. According to the reporting on ABC 7:30 Report tonight, IIRC we had something like 4 days of extreme heat in the entire previous century, but 5 days already in this century. That is rapid change, in my books. It echoes the data for the glaciers – rapid change, year to year, NOT decade to decade.
Rapid change. Repeat, rapid change. Are we sure this is linear change?
Human beings are relatively good at adapting to slow changes in their environment. They are dead useless at dealing with nonlinear, exponential change. Studies show that the vast majority of humans intuitively extrapolate a straight line, and undershoot badly.
We need to start thinking about damage in a more rigorous way.
Mark – you invited comments spcifically on what happened/nearly-happened/didn’t-happen at COP-15 Copenhagen.
Here from GCI’s viewpoint is a sum-up where the contraction-and-convergence principle [C&C] was tabled by the UK Gov and its friends, at rates as prescribed in the UK Climate Act, how they were rebuffed . . and how this might have been better managed [they should have proposed the principle and then been willing to negotiate the rates]: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/public/COP_15_C&C.swf
News from Bonn today [07 06 2011] is that there will be ‘no-deal’ at COP-17 this December in Durban SA. So, as ‘Kyoto’ expires, we teeter on a climate-change ‘event-horizon’ over which is the black-hole of dangerous rates of climate change.
There is support for C&C: – http://www.gci.org.uk/endorsements.html
If there ever is a ‘deal’, its emissions-control will be shaped something like this . . .