The New Global Warming Thread

[leejo]

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Leejo, from what the Wiki seems to say, the Easter Islanders had sufficient trees for boats. It was cutting down the trees to build, move, and support their famous statues that put them over the edge.

Can someone say "Darwin award"?

Oh! So the solution to my hypothetical Chief's Dilemma is neither A) leave the tree alone nor B) make a boat to catch fish but C) start a large costly government project or program. Good to see things haven't changed.

[xTYBALTx]

Leejo: I believe the Rapa Nui people referred to him as "Bird Catcher of the Year," not "Chief."

Mosely: I laugh at sustainability because it's misunderstood and overused. Also, I openly mock the idea of attempting to act in a way which is sustainable - if something is not sustainable, then it shall not be sustained. Seems simple enough to me! Obviously, in the case of forests and fisheries and other specific things, sustainability is indeed important. But most of the times, people just call things unsustainable which they don't like. One doesn't have to prove sustainability. Like I said, if some thing's not sustainable, then it shall not be sustained.

I need to go take a shower now. Too much of the "s" word.

[leejo]

Originally Posted by BigGaayAl

Contrary to what you assert, we HAVE been expanding for a long time. You seem to forget the only moments ago (historically) we discovered The New World.

Huh? The New World wasn't discovered because people in Europe were starving. Europe was rich at the time. The New World was discovered through innovation to find a trade route - once again a market-driven solution. It was settled by fortune-seekers and victims of religious persecution. Not hungry folk seeking resources. I don't understand how this supports your hypothesis that human expansion is driven by resource consumption.

[BigGaayAl]

Originally Posted by leejo

... market-driven solution...

Originally Posted by leejo

Not hungry folk seeking resources. I don't understand how this supports your hypothesis that human expansion is driven by resource consumption.

Plz explain to me what the fundamental difference between

"market driven solution"

and

"driven by resource consumption"

?

Resource consumption and exhausting the environment is about more then food. It is also polluting to extract say gold. The only reason colonization happens is to extract resources. We Belgians know this all to well as we look back in shame on what Leopold 2 did in his (personal posession!) Congo. It is still being pillaged as we speak. Don't come to me with a story about innovation, and religious persecution. Columbus wanted to become rich and famous by finding a profitable new trade route.

[leejo]

Uh...you seem to be all over the map. Are you saying that attempting to become rich is tantamount to exhausting local resources? Your previous posts indicated that we are a bunch of locusts scraping the earth bare, but now you seem to say that merely leaving the village to see what else is out there is to be avoided.

The difference between a "market-driven solution" and one "driven by resource consumption" is that the former is a subset of the latter. Rationing, punitive taxes, and other funky laws are examples of solutions "driven by resource consumption" that are NOT market-driven. I and others have argued that the markets are better ways of handling these issues than conservation-by-fiat and you seem to have been disagreeing but now I don't know what you've been saying.

[marstein]

Originally Posted by leejo

Oh! So the solution to my hypothetical Chief's Dilemma is neither A) leave the tree alone nor B) make a boat to catch fish but C) start a large costly government project or program. Good to see things haven't changed.

They may have cut down the trees to transport statues, build houses, build boats, make picture frames, burn them for heating food or for building spears, bows and arrows for attacks on the neighbor village.
They probably should have set priorities before it was too late. Same as us now.

If you asked the islanders when they were still going strong if it isn't foolish what they are doing to their 'world' they would probably say that they are just doing what the market dictates. And that the science was still out, that there were more trees on the other side of the island and that they could damn well do with their property as they please.

[xTYBALTx]

But that's just the thing, marstein. The ancient residents of Rapa Nui wouldn't have said that they were doing what the market dictates. They weren't capitalists. They would have said: "The bird catcher of the year said to use these trees to build statues."

In the market, as things become more rare and valuable, their price increases. The increase in price forces people to prioritize the use of resources. However, when you have no market, as was the case on Rapa Nui - and as continues to be the case in non-market economies - the prioritization of resources gets messed up. Things which are rare remain cheap. Things which aren't rare become expensive. Government meddling - through subsidies, punitive taxes, or other means, can have the effect of similarly distorting prices.

[marstein]

Originally Posted by leejo

Rationing, punitive taxes, and other funky laws are examples of solutions "driven by resource consumption" that are NOT market-driven. I and others have argued that the markets are better ways of handling these issues than conservation-by-fiat ....

Sometimes the market reacts a bit slow. The people driving the market are not affected by the actions of the people implementing the market. It may be too late to correct course once the trees are gone or it turns out that CO2 does affect the climate. Your elite may not realize they are destroying their basis of existing (by cutting down all the trees). Only then the poor start to become too many and revolt and burn down the palaces.

[marstein]

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

But that's just the thing, marstein. The ancient residents of Rapa Nui wouldn't have said that they were doing what the market dictates. They weren't capitalists. They would have said: "The bird catcher of the year said to use these trees to build statues."

In the market, as things become more rare and valuable, their price increases. The increase in price forces people to prioritize the use of resources. However, when you have no market, as was the case on Rapa Nui - and as continues to be the case in non-market economies - the prioritization of resources gets messed up. Things which are rare remain cheap. Things which aren't rare become expensive. Government meddling - through subsidies, punitive taxes, or other means, can have the effect of similarly distorting prices.

That makes a lot of sense but doesn't take the other factors into account: isolation of the elite, exponential effect of the market actions...

1) There may be so many rich people here that before things become expensive enough for the market to react, the environment is already destroyed.
2) Once effects are strong enough we may not be able to reverse them. So the government may choose to make them artificially more expensive.

So you are saying that you would let people totally fight for themselves? The weak will die off and the strong will survive? If your roads are bad someone will repair the road and charge toll? Everything can be bought and if you can't pay, well then tough luck? What about hicking in nature? I should have to pay the land owner? Swimming in the ocean? Breathing clean air? A market for everything doesn't make sense. Especially if our survival is at stake.

[leejo]

Originally Posted by marstein

Your elite may not realize they are destroying their basis of existing (by cutting down all the trees).

Lucky them that you're around to explain things!

Originally Posted by marstein

What about hicking in nature?

Maybe you could start by explaining what hicking in nature is. Do you mean hiking or getting busy with a lonely redneck in the woods behind the barn?

If you mean hiking in nature, then no you shouldn't have to pay for that. If you mean hiking on someone's property, then you are trespassing and there are laws that have been around forever that allow them to prosecute you. If you mean hicking in the woods behind the barn, don't ask don't tell.

[xTYBALTx]

Originally Posted by marstein

So you are saying that you would let people totally fight for themselves? The weak will die off and the strong will survive? If your roads are bad someone will repair the road and charge toll? Everything can be bought and if you can't pay, well then tough luck? What about hicking in nature? I should have to pay the land owner? Swimming in the ocean? Breathing clean air?

And I thought we were talking about the trees on Rapa Nui...

[leejo]

Well again we come full circle. I have asked folks if they can name off the top of their heads a small number of these scientists who are so alarmed about global warming, and instead of a response I get an education on how wasteful humans are and how capitalists are basically too stupid to be trusted with the planet's future. There is little science and a lot of philosophy at work here.

[BigGaayAl]

Originally Posted by leejo

Uh...you seem to be all over the map. Are you saying that attempting to become rich is tantamount to exhausting local resources?

Tiring, but one last try. That is exactly what I am saying, a specification of it.
Yes I think that differently from you apparently.

Originally Posted by leejo

The difference between a "market-driven solution" and one "driven by resource consumption" is that the former is a subset of the latter. Rationing, punitive taxes, and other funky laws are examples of solutions "driven by resource consumption" that are NOT market-driven. I and others have argued that the markets are better ways of handling these issues than conservation-by-fiat and you seem to have been disagreeing but now I don't know what you've been saying.

Leaving it to the market is in my opinion the best way to make sure NOTHING is done. The ONLY thing the market does is maximise profit.
While I am discussing the future of man, and proposing the solution that we have to keep expanding, beyond earth even, you seem to be worrying about taxes? Perhaps that is why we end so far apart on this particular topic.

I've enjoyed the discussion in the end, it is always interesting to explore another's view of the world.
*edit* I'm not going to go quote myself on the words you put into my mouth in the next post. If you read mine again you will see I never said such a thing at all.

[leejo]

No I think we end so far apart because you seem to see the vast history of human achievement and innovation as something shameful we must learn to avoid. I am not worried about taxes so much as I worry about the fools who tax.

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by leejo

Well again we come full circle. I have asked folks if they can name off the top of their heads a small number of these scientists who are so alarmed about global warming, and instead of a response I get an education on how wasteful humans are and how capitalists are basically too stupid to be trusted with the planet's future. There is little science and a lot of philosophy at work here.

Not at all. You know I could give you a list. We spent weeks batting James Hansen around, he was practically tabloid material for a while.

A couple of scientists local (and known) to me are Gordon Hamilton (glaciologist) and Joe Kelley (geologist), both at the University of Maine climate change institute, have recently published research concerning the effects of climate change on the arctic environment. They are alarmed, as are their colleagues.

I'm not as alarmed, but I (and they) take great offense at anyone who scoffs at the notion that humans have in no way contributed to these recent changes.