|
Post by jamierobertson on Oct 28, 2012 7:30:40 GMT
Fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Oct 29, 2012 1:58:55 GMT
So, if I understand this correctly, if some teenagers on Reddit exaggerate things somewhat, that means we must believe precisely the opposite? Or something? Strange, because I've been to Sweden and it's actually a wonderful place full of the happiest people on earth living rich lives and enjoying the highest quality of life in the world. Largely without God or gods. Sweden is doing an awful lot right, and score high on happiness scales. However, their suicide rate is nothing to be proud of, and has prompted considerable research into why nations such as Sweden have suicide rates far higher than their happiness index would lead us to expect.
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Oct 29, 2012 16:33:49 GMT
I suppose there is even less chance of climate change getting a mention in the US Presidential elections due to the chaos caused by that particularly huge hurricane thing over the US at present : Not that that has anything to do with climate change : blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100186825/is-hurricane-sandy-the-product-of-global-warming-youre-asking-the-wrong-question/Is Hurricane Sandy the product of global warming? But, of course, it's not as simple as that. For a start, there are enough unknown factors in the complex and chaotic climate system for it to surprise us entirely. But more importantly, because hurricanes are relatively few in number, it's difficult to sort out signal from noise: to return to our wheel-of-fortune analogy, if you only spin the thing once a year, you'll have to wait a long time before you can tell whether the 10s really are more common or if it's just randomness. If Hurricane Sandy really is the biggest storm of its kind to hit the States, you might think that adds weight to the climate change hypothesis, but on its own it tells us nothing; statistical outliers happen sometimes. A 2005 review of the literature found that there was "weak" evidence of an increase in hurricane intensity over the last 50 years; it also found a "near doubling" in the "power dissipation" of storms (a measure determined by a combination of duration and wind speed). But the authors say that may be due to other factors.Anyway, one prays that everyone will be OK (and that those who cannot afford "Hummers" to travel in to polling booths are not deterred from voting by the weather).
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Oct 29, 2012 20:40:59 GMT
I suppose that with high unemployment and national debt, and a populace unconvinced by the AGW thesis, neither candidate wants to promise further 'green tape' for industry.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Oct 29, 2012 21:21:26 GMT
Which is ironic, since in Germany (also according to that report by the German Environmental Agency iirc) the green economy is a relatively job creating sector.
I'm not so sure whether it is tactically advisable to stress that there are great costs involved as Attenborough does. It's true, but no sane person can deny we will have to invest in energy production anyway, whether durable or not, (we can't let antiquated power plants run forever) and it's projected that the durable investments pay themselves off within twenty to thirty years (again that report).
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Oct 30, 2012 15:10:34 GMT
Both candidates appear to believe that climate change is a significant problem (though the GOP tends to regard it as a non-problem). However, you can't touch the subject of climate change in the US elections for the following reasons.
1) It's the economy stupid - The solutions you need for addressing climate change tend to involved new taxes and regulations. This would be politically toxic at the best of times but are no-go areas when the entire election is about the economy and the sluggish recovery.
2) Voters have other concerns - Climate change skepticism is actually in decline according to polls but there is an apathy about the topic especially in the wake of economic hardship. Voters simply care more about short term economic growth than long term problems
3) OH-HI-YO! - This election will pretty much be decided in Ohio because of the electoral college system. That means winning over a large section of blue collar Appalachia which is increasingly profiting from coal and fracking. Lose their section of the vote by emphasizing environmental impacts and you lose the whole state and the election
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Oct 31, 2012 8:17:56 GMT
Introducing new environmental taxes doesn't have to increase the tax burden, though. The European Commission recommends a tax shift from labour tax to taxes on property, pollution and consumption. Of course that doesn't tackle point 3.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Oct 31, 2012 10:51:39 GMT
I have recently come across a blog by a Swedish charismatic social activist civil disobedience supporter - a most interesting combination. His take on the election, climate change and the recent hurricane is most interest - Romney, Sandy & Haiti - I know, sounds like a 60s folk group! He quotes Romney saying "I'm not in this race to slow the rise of the oceans or to heal the planet" and suggests christians should always be interested in healing. I don't agree with everything he says, but it was an interesting perspective.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Nov 1, 2012 21:35:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Nov 1, 2012 23:51:01 GMT
But the article is so US-centric - "The Big Apple survives Sandy and shows how to live with climate change". What it should say is: "The US shows how, if you have enough money and selfishness, you can deal with the problem of climate change that you helped cause, but callously offer no hope to the millions in Bangladesh and North Africa who have no way of dealing with the problems."If I sound a little p----d off, I am (not at you, but at western self-centredness).
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Nov 2, 2012 7:07:13 GMT
Hi UnkleE, That is not how I read the article at all. I think its message (and it is one I agree with) is that it is far more important that Bangladesh becomes a wealthy country than it is to cut carbon emissions. It was not about western selfishness, but about how wealth is the best defence against nature. And one thing Bangladesh needs to get rich is cheap energy. It is interesting how two people with different preconceptions can read different articles from the same words! Best wishes James
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Nov 2, 2012 11:47:52 GMT
I think its message (and it is one I agree with) is that it is far more important that Bangladesh becomes a wealthy country than it is to cut carbon emissions. It was not about western selfishness, but about how wealth is the best defence against nature. But the point is that it is currently impossible for all the world to get rich enough, and will be for the forseeable future. In the US and Australia, and I would guess in UK and western Europe, we live at such a profligate standard that it would take 5-10 earths to maintain that lifestyle if everyone else was able to live the same. One consequence of everyone getting rich like us is that global warming would get very much worse. The world only survives as it does because we are privileged and others are not. So we are faced with a choice: either we lower our use of resources to allow other countries to raise theirs, or we prevent them from raising theirs (somehow) or we totally trash the planet in a couple of generations. Yes, I agree. But I suspect in this case it isn't so much that we read the article differently, but that we see the consequences differently.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Nov 2, 2012 13:24:15 GMT
It was not about western selfishness, but about how wealth is the best defence against nature. It's the wealthiest nations which have landed us in this mess in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Nov 2, 2012 20:16:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Nov 2, 2012 20:39:30 GMT
|
|