Envirologue: Too Big to Fail – Why National will Never Act on Climate Change
244 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 10 Newer→ Last
-
What you are really calling for is the sort of internal resistance the surveillance state, created with the excuse of foreign terror, has really been created to repress.
The neoliberal dark age is going to be being made more sinister, and more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.
-
Californian fracking industry used nearly 265 million litres of water in the last 12 months
That sounds like a lot. But, lets check the offical numbers..
* 38 billion gallons of water withdrawals per day were distributed among 8 categories.
* Mining: 0.7% (272 million gallons per day)So mining is 272 million gallons per day, or less than 1% of total usage and your fracking number above is around 1/1000 of the mining total ( gallons vs litres, day vs year) .
-
Hi Simon: I agree that the numbers, as a percentage, are not huge (although significant, given the gravity of California's plight). What I'm pointing out here is the fact that human are using their precious water to search for more oil and gas. I think that speaks volumes about A: humans, and B: the zealotry of the prevailing economic-political system.
-
Chinatown redux...
The irrigation of almond orchards sucks up quite a lot of Californian water too, what they need is more intensive dairying and some cotton plantations as well, not. -
Not only do conservatives believe in climate change; they understand it – or at least its consequences – far better than many liberals. All this time, we’ve slated them for being behind the eight ball when in fact, they’re way ahead of us.
You go on to argue that conservatives are unwilling to allow any solution to climate change that would interfere with their political ideology, and have no other solution. That's the complete opposite of the statement above.
-
Simon, yes, fracking is only a tiny percentage of water usage. The more worrying thing is that the fracking wastes have gotten into drinking water acquifers... Taranaki, anyone?
-
It’s clear then, that an awful lot of time, money and zeal went into the annexation of the global economy
No its not, you’ve just asserted that this is the case. Would you mind providing some sources for those very dramatic claims? Not everyone lived through that period, nor, I suspect, did everyone who did experience it the same way.
-
Because climate change will only worsen the global inequality neoliberalism created, combatting it necessarily entails the redistribution of wealth and the reinstatement of a more equitable society.
No, because climate change will only worsen the global inequality neoliberalism created, combatting it necessarily entails removing one factor that will worsen global inequality.
It may also entail the redistribution of wealth and the reinstatement of a more equitable society, but I'm not really sure why it would.
-
Dave Hansford, in reply to
Samuel: there is no contradiction here... the neoliberals understand climate change, they believe it is happening, and they have no intention of doing anything about it. That's because to accept that climate change needs to be combatted would be to A: admit that their system has failed, and B: allow the kind of reforms I've outlined to prevail. When I say they're way ahead of us, that means they have their response already drafted and voted on.
-
Dave Hansford, in reply to
No its not, you’ve just asserted that this is the case. Would you mind providing some sources for those very dramatic claims? Not everyone lived through that period, nor, I suspect, did everyone who did experience it the same way.
I listed at length the successive conquests of neoliberal policy, Samuel. These took place over a period of more than three decades. That's a lot of time. Billions of dollars of World Bank loans, conditional upon accepting and implementing free market policies – is a lot of money. The zeal is evidenced by the fact that you now live under a neoliberal system, as does most of the western world and much of the east. These are not claims – they're a matter of historical fact, in plain view.
-
Dave Hansford, in reply to
It may also entail the redistribution of wealth and the reinstatement of a more equitable society, but I’m not really sure why it would.
Samuel, You might like to ask the people of Kiribati, or Tuvalu, or the Inuit why any measures to address climate change must protect and enshrine the interests of those most disadvantaged by it.
-
If anyone's interested in a detailed history of the development of water resources in the American west, I can recommend the classic book "Cadillac Desert" by Marc Reisner. Prefaced of course by Shelley's Ozymandias:
'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.For the short version, PBS made a four part documentary based on the book which is probably well worth a watch.
-
The big three US auto makers have sued electric car pioneer Tesla, blocking it from direct sales in Michigan, Ohio, Texas and at least five other states.
More here from Brian Boyko (who not too long ago eyed NZ as an emigration destination).
And yet another example of neo-liberalism as feudalism:
Otherwise put, it’s a good example of Crouch’s critique of neo-liberal efforts to ‘shrink’ government – that in practice it is less about free markets than the handing over of government functions to well connected businesses.
-
Not only do conservatives believe in climate change; they understand it – or at least its consequences – far better than many liberals.
It’s taken liberals so very long to realise this. The page turned on the climate change debate many years ago. The theory and the evidence for it’s veracity is hardly new. Sadly the liberals have been spending their time counteracting the well funded denial apparatus for many wasted years. Well played neo-cons.
When will they realise that the game has moved on? The turf war over adaption vs mitigation is well underway and still the liberals are trying to make sure everyone is happy about the science concensus.Simon Bridges is already positioning himself as an evangelist for electric vehicles, ready to bathe in the reflected ‘green’ glow they confer. The techno-cornucopians are ready to present us with the next wonderful invention (that will make hardly any difference to the atmospheric CO2 concentration). Kathryn Ryan will yet again proselytise about the wonders of Lanzatec, oblivious to the highly limited use of such technology. The Labour Party will still campaign on a policy of GGrrrowth and the Greens will still promote tourism as a reason to protect the environment.
And still we will track an RCP of 6.5 – 8… -
And here’s some LifeHacker advice on dealing with science denialists. The same principles could also apply to other political myths such as 'beneficiaries with SKYTV dishes'.
How then should scientists respond to science denial? The answer lies in a branch of psychology dating back to the 1960s known as “inoculation theory“. Inoculation is an idea that changed history: stop a virus from spreading by exposing people to a weak form of the virus. This simple concept has saved millions of lives.
-
I still don't see the scientific relationship between Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming and CO2 given that the world's surface temperature has remain static for some 18 years to-date, while CO2 has increased from approximately 350 ppm to 400 ppm.
I would appreciate an explanation.
-
Oooh! CATASTROPHIC!!
Yeah, we all see what you did there.
Why not try the Daily Mail comments section - it's got bells on. -
By the way - if there's anyone out there that can be bothered to engage Stamper Stamp in his/her tedious arguments, they may want to hone their skills through the free MOOC that starts today through the University of Queensland.
https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x#!
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
I would appreciate an explanation.
LOL. Perhaps you haven't looked for one?
-
Brent Jackson, in reply to
...given that the world’s surface temperature has remain static for some 18 years to-date...
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
they may want to hone their skills through the free MOOC that starts today through the University of Queensland.
https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x#!
Looks like a bloody good course!
-
Samuel Buckman, in reply to
I listed at length...
Sorry, my quoting the conclusion only may have been confusing. But I was asking for sources, not examples. As a young person trying to get into politics, it's frustrating when people construct arguments based on history I'm not familiar with. Especially when I find it hard to believe that the world would look the way it does today if everyone subscribed to that version of history.
The zeal is evidenced by the fact that you now live under a neoliberal system, as does most of the western world and much of the east.
Umm..the result would only be evidence of zeal in creating the result if I knew that there was strong opposition to it. And I don't know that.
You might like to ask the people of Kiribati, or Tuvalu, or the Inuit why any measures to address climate change must protect and enshrine the interests of those most disadvantaged by it.
All I mean is that there is a difference between 'not making things worse' and 'making things better', and this seems to be a case of the former. If this is not the case, I'm happy to learn, if only you would explain it in greater detail.
-
there is no contradiction here...
Sorry, you're right. The contradiction only arises when I insert my implicit premise 'neoliberals are not completely evil'.
I think for the most part that premise is true. The closest look into neoliberal minds that I've seen is in The Hollow Men, and I got the impression that Don Brash and his entourage genuinely believed that they were doing the right thing for the country. They were just wrong.
-
Even ten years ago I thought there may be a chance to turn things around but now I think there is no chance whatsoever. The climate/ecological-ruin monster is just so big and growing every day with most people either ignorant of it or too invested in it to care. Can you really see any Government actually doing what is needed (a huge reduction in economic activity and growth of all kinds) when even the Green Party has to operate in a consumer capitalist "growth" paradigm? Modern industrial "civilisation" (if you can call it that) is a "heat engine" but try getting anyone to vote for a reduction of industrial civilisation - good luck with that!
All that remains is to prepare on a personal level for what is going to be a very unstable and (at times) catastrophic future.
-
Stamper Stamp, in reply to
Hi Brent,
The attached may be of help to you.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.