open Democracy News Analysis - the politics of climate change - Comments

srheywood on "Climate change: a failure of leadership "

srheywood — Mon, 25 May 2009 10:22:16 +0100

"Comments and criticisms welcome,

Thanks

James Greyson"

Thanks James. Just signed up to WiserEarth owing to your link.

Matt A on "Climate change: a failure of leadership "

Matt A — Fri, 15 May 2009 09:04:58 +0100

It's not a failure of the leadership, it's a failure of the people. Leadership comes from the people. This is the best they could do.
So, it's the public that is a real failure!
Just live with it!

douglas-jones on "Climate change: a failure of leadership "

douglas-jones — Mon, 11 May 2009 09:15:52 +0100

I did subscribe to the hypothesis that paradigms only change when great suffering and sorrow effected many, maybe even those at the top largely protected from the hurly burly of normal life.
This seemed to fit well with the sentiments from 1944 on which lead to many promises and some good which faded as time passed.
I had suggested that only when climate change had damaged enough people action would take place.
Probably too late for many folk, given that of warming is due to our activities. Reversing such takes time a long time CO2 having a residence time put at 100 years or more, a large saddle bag weight to carry in our race for correction but worse the already evident effects, may take even longer, perhaps a thousand years Less water, more desert and much more, but these will effect the poorer of the world and thus worthy of many warm statements of intent but little action.
I should say I admire the many who are working hard to make change just that without either mass support or the bigwigs coming on side the effort may be largely futile.
But what struck about this article is its highlighting of the downturn used as excuse to delay action. Think what it will be like in several years when we are faced with food shortage due to biofuel and desertification, oil supplies well passed the peak and not only transport fuel but all those absolutely necessary items of make up produced from oil and of course in a less important way the drugs and so much more not forgetting energy itself.
It is said that the current economic mess may still be with us when these other events become paramount.
Our poor leaders one must sympathise in advance, though of course they will probably be fully involved in fighting resource wars, correction wars for freedom and democracy.
And taking this mess likened to 1930 but different it is said, different in an economic sense shown by esoteric mathematical formulation, similar only in that laissez-faire prevailed we are fully informed in this our democratic society run for us all be us all.
It is a catastrophe but here the response is not to seek real correction but more to muddle and hide the cause, perhaps to reengage those regulations so carefully put aside in response to the needs of nationalism, Bretton woods and lobbies, the remainder, placed to prevent a recurrence of the event, removed by the desire for riches a convenient belief in the hidden hand of the market and the ever present needs of politics.
In response to the experience of the thirties in which the downturn was prolonged by the tightening of monetary policy we are instead paying the rogues in the hope they will in the fullness of time deliver liquidity, a time frame ever increased as the, now legal off books activities, one might say under the counter, slowly reach common knowledge.
The worthless paper pretending to be wealth was spread widely.
No Pecora Commission to expose the Banksters, to use Time Magazine term. Few question the silence of the many economists, though for Australia Ian Macfarlane did note that flagging a boom was not in the remit of the reserve bank though as he says in the Boyer lecture he was aware of the danger posed. No great drama has unfolded in the popular press as would be normal for large fraud with much seeking of punishment rather the excessive pay of CEO and Management alike have been targeted, serving as diversion not analysis of the real cause.
So here a catastrophe has become not correction as my belief would have it but only pain.

precycled on "Climate change: a failure of leadership "

precycled — Sun, 10 May 2009 12:47:43 +0100

Yes, the opportunity to respond to the entire planet crunch is waiting to be grasped. Here's my draft paper for an international conference, 'From credit crunch to planet crunch - or revival?' at http://www.wiserearth.org/resource/view/6cde9add775de8a2ead56e6234d9ec7a/section/main

Comments and criticisms welcome,

Thanks

James Greyson

Logged in Lawrence Efana on "Climate change: a failure of leadership "

Logged in Lawrence Efana — Sat, 09 May 2009 22:53:28 +0100

In agreement with the first commentator, this indeed is a good article. But to enjoy and put value to it, readers need to spare the time to go through all the references attached. That is, the source through which interested commentators find the facts likely to enrich what they might probably have known already about the area of problem in question.

A large part of arguments in the article is much in shape with recent BBC World Debate on the Amazon in Rio, Brazil. It does seem capitalism could make a guarded sense in area of climate deterioration and control. However, to match level of challenges involved, 'mindset' change and 'good' leadership might have to be inseparable. Mindset change has to do with our values, practices and lifestyles and our institutions as well. Are we ready for the change or are current plans enough?

JOHN MACKINLAY on "Climate change: a failure of leadership "

JOHN MACKINLAY — Sat, 09 May 2009 09:14:01 +0100

good article , need more on this .

earthgecko on "The plague spin of New Orleans"

earthgecko — Wed, 06 May 2009 17:08:11 +0100

This is an interesting piece Jim, it does highlight how invincible we feel, however the world case changed since those days, and changed fairly dramatically.

We know that the next pandemic is inevitable, not a matter of if but when. Therefore, assuming that everything will be alright and we will "overcome" is a fairly optimistic and in some way a naive way of looking at the situation. This is not to say all is doom and gloom. Just that a measure of caution may be required. If the next pandemic is a real killer the death toll will be incredibly high, orders of magnitude more than anything of civilisation has seen before. This is not based on any medical statement, but on our current rapidly evolving social systems, which rapid they may be, still lags behind our more rapidly evolving world

Our current defense plan against this virus is mostly based on Tamiflu (oseltamivir) which ironically H1N1 has been developing a very fast resistance to since 2007 (WHO reported) and last year achieved 100% resistence to strains in South Africa and Australia reported by Dr Niman and even the CDC on 10 Jan 2009 reported that 98% of their H1N1 samples from 25 states tested were resistant and many more.

So even if the cures do become more effective, whether we have the time and infrastructure to develop them, mass produce them and distribute them, is unfortunately a question that will only be answered when it happens.

Our recent handling of a number of disasterous events has shown us that we are vulnerable to systematic breakdown. It may even be arguable that our current social systems are too vast, complex and interconnected to actually respond to, let alone deal with a crisis on a national or global scale. Not that there is anything that we can necessarily do about that. I think if fate plays us one of those cards, all our optimism and ingenuity may be found to be lacking.

However, on a brighter note, I do believe we will bounce back, only different and yes New Orleans may bounce back as well.

We should never underestimate the power of evolution. We often forget that evolution does not only create, it is also a very powerful destructive force as well.

JFox on "The G20’s missing voice "

JFox — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:53:52 +0000

Excellent. You might be interested in this brief article - particularly the last couple of paragraphs. It seems to me that the new vision you rightly call for has to begin with a reaction against the absurdities of "forced" free trade. Perhaps "make what you can and buy what you must" would be a more appropriate mantra both for humanity and for the planet.

Joe Sanders - Sportbikes on "Indonesia: the biofuel blowback "

Joe Sanders - Sportbikes — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 01:26:51 +0000

Nations are now bent in finding alternative fuel sources and it seems to narrow one's view of the whole picture.

the dude on "Living the American movie"

the dude — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 08:32:49 +0000

i can't help thinking it's awesome that there has been such long lines all over... people taking a greater interest in public issues is always a good thing

johnevans7 on "Living the American movie"

johnevans7 — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 07:41:25 +0000

The American Dream.

Very apt.

Tinsel Town , with Tinsel contents

craig2012 on "Finance, politics, climate: three crises in one"

craig2012 — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 21:01:49 +0000

The central premise --that the system has failed-- is flawed. If the global bankers had not cooperated to inject liquidity into the financial system first, and the world's economies second, the authors could have made that statement. But that is not what has happened.

This, however, is not the '29 meltdown, it is just the next leg of the inflation/deflation cycle. The markets are rapidly adjusting and the system is showing reslience, at least for now.

Not logged in Lawrence Efana on "Amid the financial storm: redirecting climate change "

Not logged in Lawrence Efana — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 21:25:28 +0000

Once again, a paper soliciting advisory renewal of our mindset on issues of poverty, due partly to the present aggravated financial problems and risks of a world-wide economic recession.

Mindset is a problem and also a target. It relates closely to "attitude-change" itself commonly agreed as a problem - somewhat echoed above by the first commentator. Mindset problem-dimension is acute, not because poverty is relegated to background at: i) national, and ii) global levels. Efforts at latter level are cited here as a proof of that. Nevertheless, the problem must be sustainability, more obvious now with the financial melt-down limitations on the credit market. Going well beyond this simplistic classical neo-liberal explanatory protective screen, is perhaps the essence of seeing mindset as a major problem.

In my comment therefore, a dimension of the author's point courting weighty attention is and I quote: "If this global public sentiment can continue to fuel the work of civil-society organisations and campaigners, the new generation of international political leaders will have a strong foundation to deliver effective change" - why I think that the paper calls for advisory contributions.

There is common-knowledge problem here: "poverty" and its problems, if at global level, are relative! There is cultural dimension: consumables - things and values], defining basic-need indicators of peoples and systems as the derivative of their environments and levels of development. Agreeably, in the contexts poverty might not emit commonality but does clearly depress local and global interpretations of its weight and problems. By depressing thus it juxtaposes the so-called 'rich' and 'poor' - either as individuals or nations or in sheer context of the 'North' and 'South'. The 'singularities' and 'pluralities' of poverty must be taken seriously in a new mindset discourse.

Liberal democracy as the foundation of "good governance" is not having it easy and hasn't even done so in history on poverty questions and issues. It will become more difficult now that development has catapulted human-kind beyond basic tenets of the "greatest happiness of the greatest number" - of course, with exponential growth of [her] population. That is to say that the drive for "good-life" has grown to be seen beyond sheer "technical" language of "statistical central tendency", with 'fall-outs' at both extremes. The question for governance couldn't have been that with the welfare state idea there should be the case of population fall-outs. In my opinion this sounds odd, but 'real world' challenge for the modern-day governance, also compounded by depleting resources amidst lofty technological wonders and humiliating environmental problems.

It would be deceiving ourselves if we say that we ignore the dilemma apparent. Paradoxically, in theory, it should be that same dilemma which should give stimuli to thesis of new mindset, transcending the national and global level endeavours and governance. It could mean that "partnership" would be meaningless for solutions to ensuing problems if good morals are absent, or selfishness, individualism, greed and conservatism - protection of the status-quo are allowed to consume solidarity. Human evolution, experience and development journey need conditions like these to calm negative revolutionary tendencies, induce optimal balance of development and commitment to environmental protection. Mindset change and institutional reform will do a great deal for external aid moral and in the long-run reduction for culture of getting into debts/moderating consumption. At both the national and global levels poverty defined by several factors and variables is a menace, either because they are absent, insufficient or where there are enough, shared unequally that some are left out. Good governance is thus moralised despite its empirical/theoretical realism. Ideas of: i) the private, ii) public) and iii) third sectors must be trimmed. That is what 'ingenious' expressions from the financial meltdown: a) Wall Street - top business financial institutions; and b) Main Street - the innocent man in the street, imply in contemporary new mindset argument to the benefit of poverty reduction/management (or eradication?)

I wish I could draw G20 attention to Efana (2008: chapters 9 and 11) - whose Pdf file is now with Tony oD. There are useful empirical and theoretical arguments in the book also for the 15-11-08 meeting on mindset discourse.

Lawrence Efana [Finland]

postmaster on "Amid the financial storm: redirecting climate change "

postmaster — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 18:39:52 +0000

I agree with the general tenor, & hypotheses. Thoroughly.

One note of criticism could be over-academic presentation ; it is objectionable, of course, to have to 'sell' one's perfectly reasonable conclusions in the marketplace of the four-second attention span.

Not that the latter applies to this website, obviously.

olsonj on "Amid the financial storm: redirecting climate change "

olsonj — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:19:39 +0000

Seems to me that the idea of climate already entails human construction of what we should measure in our environment- for common good--for doing what is important to us. Technology in other words. So rather than a hybrd term, as the author says, it seems that climate is already a term of technique and hence part of technology which is already multifaceted but a domain in itself.

You could call technology hybrid but that would reduce it to a thing not really itself and not accord it its due as a domain of intellectual and practical affairs. It would help the discouse about climate change if its essentially technological character were recognized thus allowing us to bring to bear what we know about technolgy as a disciplined area of thinking about human affairs. The danger is to see the issue as science and some other things rather than as a technology issue per se.