Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum Lets inject some real controversy

Not the trumped up kind such as make believe statistics or unsupported claims. How about this to throw a bit of gasoline on the fire. And yes this is all about personal opinion.

=============================================
During World War II, a large share of humanity stared into the abyss.

In the unforgiving conditions, traumatised by their collective experience, almost everyone wanted to build a better, safer and fairer world.

They accepted this meant sharing some of their wealth and freedoms with others for the common good.

Public hospitals and schools were built, living standards were deliberately raised and ancient class divisions were broken down.

Later, as the developed world came to feel more comfortable and less vulnerable, many started to begrudge the spending of their money on such intangible, long-term benefits; the post-war contract between citizens and their states started to break down.

By the 1980s, politicians such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan had even started to suggest that there was "no such thing as society". Investors could single-handedly make the world a better place and any constraint on trade, such as a nasty old law, was quickly labelled as a burdensome hindrance.

The rhetoric proved to be hugely successful electorally in many countries; and while Reagan and Thatcher once stood at the fringes of political thought, their view of personal and consumer choice as an article of faith has become mainstream.

Even financial disasters such as Enron, the looming pensions "time-bomb", and Hurricane Katrina do not seem to have fundamentally shaken the widespread belief that the market will one day, somehow, mystically solve our problems.

But why should consumer choice be sacrosanct?

Are consumers best placed to make informed choices? Are there not situations where a bit of straightforward regulation might be more effective?

It was as far back as 1951 that Sir Richard Doll first showed the link between smoking and lung cancer; yet consumers still choose to buy cigarettes.

Clearly, having a good evidence base is not enough on its own to produce sensible decisions.

In the case of climate change, our scientific understanding is increasingly robust, and it is becoming inevitable that we will have to reduce our carbon emissions drastically.

But we simply do not like the implications; we have become emotionally attached to our fossil fuel lifestyles and status symbols.

Governments and businesses, of course, need to remain popular. For businesses this means selling as cheaply as possible; for governments, giving us jam today as well as promising it tomorrow.

So who will take responsibility for unleashing the potential solutions to global climate change?

In the view of many, leadership from our elected representatives is essential.

This is especially true when it comes to changing the rules under which individuals and businesses compete, and making the hard choices for the long-term good of society.

By contrast, maintaining a business-as-usual approach merely encourages consumers to continue buying cheap, inefficient, technologies.

Another insidious side effect of governments not giving leadership is that businesses fear being undercut and losing market share, should they ever incur discretionary yet responsible costs which are being avoided by their competitors.

Undoubtedly, breaking this paralysis will require immense moral courage. For courage, leaders of today need only to look back in time a little and see what their predecessors did.

For example, the hard-won ban against slavery deliberately went against what was considered economically justified.

=============================================
Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6067960.stm

Anyone want to jump in and take a swing at it? This is where science and politics meet Edina Monsoon (pictured at the link and looking oh so lovely as always).

DA wrote:

"The rhetoric proved to be hugely successful electorally in many countries; and while Reagan and Thatcher once stood at the fringes of political thought, their view of personal and consumer choice as an article of faith has become mainstream."

My brother always says, "There are two things you have to remember: People are greedy and people are lazy". This is why the new right philosophy has been so successful. Of course it is really just a return to the 19th century free market, which had proved so disastrous for the less wealthy.

Unfortunately DA I see no simple solution.

Try to keep things simple. Our Generation has screwed up. End of discussion. How do the next few Generations compensate for our crimes? A quantum shift in human values will be needed. The various media have more effect on determining human values than anything else. If humanity can be convinced to go back to the post WWII mindset, the human race might yet survive.

I mean, hey, look at "Star Trek".

I agree with Wolfman, my generation, the Baby Boomers are a bunch of spoiled self-centered materialist children unwilling to sacrifice any perceived material comfort for the future.

Whereas our parents were willing to sacrifice everything ... WWII ... we don't truly care about anything. And unfortunately we have raised the next generation to think it is entitled to not care either.

I think the only thing that is going to change this is very substantial pain. So that society can again learn the lessons that got us to 1945.

Wolfman wrote:

"Our Generation has screwed up. End of discussion."

I disagree. I don't think there is anything special about our generation, except that there are too many of us.

DA wrote:

"my generation, the Baby Boomers are a bunch of spoiled self-centered materialist children"

(my generation as well). I think this has always been true for all generations of humans. It is even true for all species.

DA further commented:

"Whereas our parents were willing to sacrifice everything ... WWII ..."

Sure many of our parents went through hell during WWII but my father, for example, volunteered. War was considered a grand adventure in those days, especially as a result of the depression. It was only once he'd witnessed the destruction of modern weapons and began to wonder who he was actually fighting for that questions arose.

TNZ wrote:
"I don't think there is anything special about our generation"

I disagree. Yes I know that every generation, as it grows older, complains about the next generation. And yes I know at my age prognostications about doom and gloom are the status quo. But I still disagree.

For roughly 10,000 years human civilizations have changed very slowly. Social customs such as marriage and Bar Mitzvah/Confirmation, etc. formed the basis for customs and were slow to evolve. One did what their great-great-great grandparents did with only nuanced differences.

With the advent of jet travel, antibiotics, electronic communications, etc. the customs are rendered meaningless and are dropped (quite reasonably) but not replaced by more relevant substitute.

I think the current war in Iraq a violation of international law and reason and would swoon were George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld dragged in chains before the World Court.

But at the same time I must reasonably agree that were it a justifiable war my generation, and those that follow, wouldn't be willing to sacrifice a Starbuck's latte' to defend their country until someone personally attacked them. They are more likely to get upset by a scratch to their car door than to the genocide in Darfur.

My father was in WWII and I know why he joined. He did it because he understood that with "rights" come "responsibilities." That understanding has ceased to exist.

I actually have a lot to do with young people (12-17 years old) and many of them are just as idealistic as we hippies were. I think you might be surprised if a genuine war against injustice broke out. Trouble is most have trouble agreeing that the "War against Terror" is anything other than a war to promote it. Or it is a religious war.

My father's doubts arose when his unit were not allowed to site their guns at a gap in a coral reef. They would have had to destroy a palm plantation belonging to Lever brothers. It was at that stage he began to wonder who he was actually fighting for.

Sounds like those 12-17 year olds have wisdom beyond those running my country.

I can't speak to 12-17 year olds in a country other than mine ... but were they in this one ... I would expect heck to freeze over before they ever stood up and yelled "Hell no we won't go" as did many in my generation. And those very same people are now the morons jailing millions for minor drug offenses they themselves committed and they are the very same people who freely elected a world leader who has inflamed passions in the name of corporate greed.

I am not optimistic.

DA. I think everybody else has more wisdom than those running your country.

Don't forget a sizeable number of my fellow citizens elected those morons.

Oh and we are the leaders of the free world. Choke, Cough, Gasp, Wheeze!

Oops ... this is the climate forum ... how's your weather?

We have now surpassed the all time record for rainfall in a single month in Seattle. 50% above average rainfall. And the first time in my years here I can remember snow in November (in the city).

DA asked "how's your weather?"

Unlike you we've had about half our average rainfall for November. Mind you rainfall during Nov. is very variable here. Snow here in the South Island too. Also fairly unusual for this time of year. No proof of anything mind you.

The problem is once again religious in nature.

Consumerism is a powerful god indeed, and feeds an ancient evolutionary need to aquire resources/territory.

It strokes our post-modern existential angst by giving us meaning. As in the words of 'The Thinker' - "I aquire, therefore I have purpose". And all the while the TV purrs at us that it's not a problem. '...because you're worth it'.

And the government allows and fosters a situation where we are all in debt up to our Nike caps. The god of consumerism demands it. Because we can 'have it now and reap the cost later' and service capitalism's growth whatever the cost. And when you're in debt you don't complain, because you're too busy and tired, working all the hours under the sun to pay it all back so you can afford your next plasma tv.

And what a powerful religion consumerism is. It is able to consume the old Monotheisms. Christians preach the prosperity gospel with church services entitled 'share in the coming wealth', instead of 'sell your posessions and give the money to the poor'. And Muslim teenagers in the UK are only intersted in buying the latest car and give up giving alms and their parents ways.

But don't worry because America's beast will take care of all this. The budget deficit and the coming refusal of other countries to service American debt will result in Dollar Collapse within a decade.

It will take nothing less than a breakdown of Western Civilization to stop this headlong slide into an orgy of acquisition at all costs.

Dollar Collapse is yer man.

Blacknad.

Blacknad wrote:
"It will take nothing less than a breakdown of Western Civilization to stop this headlong slide into an orgy of acquisition at all costs."

Just once I'd like to read a newstory or a report by a reputable economist that would give me grounds to disagree with you. An excuse to demand a link supporting your preposterous contention: Alas I can't.

In the Seattle Times this morning the report was that the US has increased its debt by 300% in just six years. I could point out that those 6 years were while we were managed by "conservatives" but that would just be throwing stones. The truth is that John Q. Public doesn't want to hear the truth from his elected political hack. We elect people to represent our hopes and aspirations and I aspire to keep spending like there is no tomorrow.

In the US we keep hearing the moronic drumbeat about how unfair it is to have a death tax ... a renaming of the estate tax. Yet where is the politico willing to stand up and talk about the birth tax? The tax burden we put on everyone born that immediately assumes a burden of $365,000 and will pay for a lifetime for their parent's irresponsibility?

How does this rant tie into climate? It is exactly the same thing ... we are throwing garbage into air, water, and land ... and leaving it for the next generation to deal with. Another birth tax by the selfish and irresponsible baby-boom generation.

Is part of global warming the fact that I am hot about this? <g>

Blacknad and DA. I agree. What's the next step?

Everyone in agreement? Surely we can stamp that out if we try. Hmmmmmm?

Essentially we find ourselves in a situation where,

1. Most, not all, corporations oppose anything that they interpret as interfering with their short-term profit goals.

2. Most, not all, of our fellow citizens are not going to put a guard rail on the bridge until some sympathetic soul, perhaps a cute blond with her lovely child, is pitched off the side onto the rocks below.

3. There are a small number of people willing to inconvenience themselves (or at least that is the perception), today, in order to try to maintain a more general quality of life on the planet.

I think the next steps are two-fold. First to act in accordance with one's principles. Stop toadying up to the rampant commercialism and the motivation to waste. Second to educate others as to the implications of not changing course when the ship is heading toward an iceberg.

It is that desire to educate, and challenge misinformation, that keeps me here.

As they say: Think global, act local. But forums like this are also very good I suspect.

http://www.unikron.com/play/play_display.cgi?speed=hi&id=canadian_values_march1

http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2007/04_26-32/LIF

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html