dglad said:
Fair enough. How about the other 5.999etc. billion other people on the planet?
Presumably they will adapt or die as well. They already are by migrating, changing consumption patterns, looking for alternative energy sources, getting different jobs.
I agree. Scaremongering is worse than useless, because it polarizes people into those who want to act rashly and those who want to disbelieve completely--both irrational positions. What's required is some thoughtful, RATIONAL consideration of the matter, and an appropriate response.
Agreed.
My point exactly. The changes made have to make good economic sense. But market forces by themselves are too blunt an instrument. For example, if you're going to use rising prices as the sole lever, then you're counting on industry to respond to those rising prices by becoming more efficient. Ask the roughly 5000 workers laid off by the primary forest products industry across Northern Ontario, and the thousands more across the country, how THEIR employers have responded to increased costs resulting from a rising Loonie, high electricity costs, high fuel costs, rising insurance premiums, etc. Instead of modernizing outdated pulp, paper, containerboard and other mills, they simply closed them down. Industry will do what's best for itself; if that's becoming more efficient, fine. But by no means is it always becoming more efficient.
I disagree here. Market forces are the only lever. Government regulation is just another force imposed on the market. Regardless of the regulation imposed the market will react accordingly. It's like trying to push beer or any other liquid of your choice. The market is self-correcting.
As to the roughly 5000 workers - you are correct. That is what happens when industry becomes more efficient. Fewer people employed. The result is that those that are unemployed have to adapt or die. Put me into that category as well. One of the reasons I am no longer in the Calg Highrs was that my job moved to Regina, then Toronto, then Calgary, then Indianapolis, then Vancouver/Seattle/Anchorage.
Conspiracy theories are almost always nonsense, because it's hard enough to get people united in common cause, much less have them keep their mouths shut about it. Rather, it was really just politics...a perception that there was sufficient political capital to be gained in forcing through unrealistic goals regarding "climate change" to justify doing so. At one point, one probably could have argued that the ONLY meaningful change in energy consumption and waste production that could occur had to be in the West, as we have been, by far, the major users of resources and energy. However, thanks to explosive economic growth in Asia, that's increasingly (and unfortunately) less true.
Actually, with respect to conspiracies, I don't believe in millions of minions all singing from the same secret song-book. I do however believe that individuals routinely gather together to push whatever levers they have at hand to achieve desirable and mutually beneficial outcomes. Most places that I am familiar with call it planning. But I do agree that secrets can't be kept though I am not sure that that is critical to the development of a conspiracy or plan.
As to the notion that only the WEST had to change - that was the implicit/explicit rationale behind Kyoto. Everybody knew at that time, including the Brazilians, Indians and Chinese, that their tide had turned, that they needed energy and that the most meaningful impact on the growth of emissions would be to get those economies to do something other than smokestacks. They declined to involve themselves. The West (ie Europe and Canada) decided that was A-OK with them and the 3rd World peanut gallery cheered from the bleachers. Russia signed on when they saw there were megabucks to be transferred to them. The US and Australia declined to get involved because they could only see their money being sent to boost competition. If Lou Dobbs is bitching about outsourcing now because of labour costs you should see him squawk when
factories close down because of high energy and abatement costs coupled with high interest rates because capital is tight.
Unfortunately, the end-state has been just as much a problem as the means to get there. The scaremongering you quite rightly criticize has led people to question whether human activities are affecting climate at all...if current climatic trends might not be the result of ill-defined natural processes. What gets lost is that they may be, but that that's completely irrelevant. Of course, human activity is changing the planet's environment; how could it not? How can you redistribute chemicals in a closed system and not have an effect on that system?
As I said, what's required is change, but sensible, rational change that makes good economic sense. Such a thing is possible, if the will exists to implement it (which may mean, paradoxically, that it's not possible after all, because the will to undertake change is something that we, as a species, often sadly lack).
I agree with almost all of that, including the statement that human activity is changing the environment. Both knowingly and unknowingly. Digging a ditch changes the environment. Building a house changes the environment. Planting crops and trees changes the environment. Building cities, evacuating cities, breathing. All of it changes the environment. Build a dam, divert a river, move a population, turn us all into nomads, kill us all off (watch the CO2 content rise then). Everything changes the environment.
I don't disagree with implementing change. In fact I agree with implementing many changes. Many changes will have to be implemented to counter changes we can't control. And unfortunately there are many things that are beyond our control and there are many other things that we may be blissfully unaware of the effects, both positive and negative, we are having.
Remember the Biosphere project? People trapped inside a terrarium with all the calculations carefully done? All inputs carefully controlled? The environment sealed off? Ultimately the place had to be evacuated because even with the seals broken and new materials added then things died and the environment turned unhealthy.
We don't know enough yet to manage the global environmental economy. We can't even effectively manage the global fiscal economy and there are fewer known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns there.
