open Democracy News Analysis - climate change - Comments

daveknutz on "Climate change's challenge to India"

daveknutz — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:18:40 +0100

Millions of people around the world are being affected by climate change and global warming. Institutes like oxfam are trying to globally coordinate governments around the world into helping tackle this issue. Due to India's overcrowding more people are at risk from the ravages of disease and abnormal weather which is a direct consequence of global changes.

srheywood on "Climate Change: politics v reality"

srheywood — Mon, 25 May 2009 10:39:11 +0100

Reconmarie

"I am still waiting for an honest dialogue among the relevant sectors of the scientific community that fairly and non-politically addresses the competing views about climate change."

I'm not a specialist, but it seems to me that this is what's already happening: you may not like the results, but that's no reason to shoot the messenger. What you seem to be doing is asking for proof on a 2+2=4 level of certainty. There won't be any such proof because the climate is too complex a system for 100% certainty, until whatever is going to happen actually happens. The future is uncharted territory but the scientific community as a whole (despite the odd bit of political influence on both sides, possibly) is going on the balance of probabilities and the precautionary principle.

srheywood on "The human brain is made for environmental complacency"

srheywood — Tue, 19 May 2009 11:50:04 +0100

David

I think you're possibly right. What do you think to the following suggestion?

Large crises in civilisations are often the result of a lack of institutional capacity on a scale commensurate with the scale of the problem. One example is the world war(s) which started in Europe 1914 - 45(-91). Although the potential for conflict was permanent (and had been ongoing ultimately since the Middle Ages), the immediate, specific cause was the reliance for peace on a decentralised web of more or less bilateral treaties and pacts between sovereign nation-states. With hindsight it was probably inevitable that this rickety system would collapse under the strain, and it did, at least twice, in 1914 and 1939. With the hindsight which came after 1945, there was an attempt to create a more robust tier of international co-operation - what became the EU - which has apparently been completely successful in the specific aim of consigning intra-European war to the realms of the unthinkable. Like many such success stories, its success was taken for granted and effectively, and dangerously, forgotten. Everybody in Europe nowadays seems to be complaining about the EU without noticing that permanent peace between states like France and Germany is actually an anomaly in historical terms and not the natural state of affairs.

The problem with climate change is that we are, so to speak, still at the Locarno Pact stage in terms of international co-operation to deal with it. Competitive instincts and discount rates and the like notwithstanding, human societies can, in fact, organise and co-operate with foresight on the very large scale. Nation-states wouldn't exist otherwise, let alone supranational institutions such as the EU - quite an achievement for a species which remains hard-wired to co-operate in groups no larger than the small nomadic band. So I see no absolute reason why climate change couldn't be limited and managed. But as the scale of the problem is global, the institutional capacity to manage it would have to be global as well. That is to say, it would have to be done by something resembling a greatly beefed-up, green version of the UN (say). This would be a big step to take, and the tendencies in this article (and your post) might well, in fact, prevent the necessary political will from accumulating - rather as real internationalism remained something of a fringe interest in the run-up to the 20th century European wars. Until 1945, after which everyone became a bit more internationalist because the failures of untrammelled nationalism were so manifest and so intolerable.

David Korowicz on "The human brain is made for environmental complacency"

David Korowicz — Mon, 18 May 2009 19:53:49 +0100

Dear Mr Goodall,

Thank you for your excellent article. I'm glad such discussions are beginning to happen.

As someone who often lectures on systemic risks to our civilisation,I often feel obliged to finish on an optimistic note. It is usually where I make my worst arguments. I wonder if you too have fallen into such a trap?

You argue that the effects of climate change on rich countries may trigger a meaningful global response. I would argue the opposite.

Firstly, global cooperation exists in relation to local competition. The resources required to sustain welfare (energy, food, employment etc) are likely to be undermined by the systemic interactions of climate change, peak oil/ gas, soil degradation, the economy, water stress etc., and the crumbling of our resource intensive infrastructure and supply chains, competition for dwindling resources is likely to become intense. In such a context the relative cost of mitigation policies in a country are likely to rise in relation to declining wealth. So such policies could make a dire situation even worse, and as you have said, not likely to come from a species with a large discount rate, strong group and family preferences, and disposed toward hierachal structures.

Secondly, it seems the bigger fix we are in, the greater our discount rate rises (we favour present benefits even more). This is the situation of cutting down your last apple tree for warmth in winter, knowing it will mean no food the following Autumn.

One of the more frightening scenarios in this regard is that the great forests of the world and store of carbon will be cut down for fuel, and for the land to be put into food production, as the energy to maintain our civilisation becomes scarce, and the multiple stresses on food production lead to famines.

I suspect we may not come out of this recession (though we may have a dead cat bounce), rather we are at the beginning of at least partial collapse in our civilisation. In such a case we we will soon enough find our illusions of potency and control will be swept away as problems overwhelm our ability to adapt.

As societies, we can deal with this predicament foolishly or with wisdom, but we should not expect that we will become other than who we are. It's not that we are good or bad, rather we express the wonder and tragedy of life and all living things.

David Korowicz
Feasta
The Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability

marksawyer2 on "Climate change in 2009: the defining issue"

marksawyer2 — Mon, 18 May 2009 19:22:17 +0100

Quite agree with most of the other comments. That's not to say I don't also think we need to clean our act up! But that will not happen because a massive mind set would have to be changed, And whilst in the developed countries the arty farty middle classes will purchase all the 'green' products they can they will not sacrifice to an extent that would make things 'uncomfortable'. So they will still run their kids to school in the little green car. instead of making the next generation of polluters WALK. No. they will not compromise on lifestyle!

As I said I do believe that we have to do something about environmental issues, URGENTLY. Not to avoid climate change, but for the sake of our souls. What's left of them. My fear is this- just as the right thinking ideas on fairness and equality have been hi-jacked over the past 15 years or so, by nutters, by people who simply wouldn't be able to formulate such ideals themselves in years gone by, more likely would be the most bigoted sorts around - the same will happen to green and envoronmental issues. It will become an industry! Just like equalities, endless courses in big companies teaching employies how to be PC. Ah sod it, too late.

I mentioned on another thread- we were once cannon fodder, then factory fodder, we have now been converted into Cash cows.

And lastly, we have had our fridges, air con, cars , TV's in every room, etc etc- and we expect the Chinese not too?

srheywood on "The human brain is made for environmental complacency"

srheywood — Mon, 18 May 2009 18:28:19 +0100

The 'narrow bell curve' reminds me of the human tendency towards horrified avoidance of any hint of the meaningless or unpredictable, coupled with the tendency to look to received wisdom (the herd instinct) to tell us exactly what meanings to ascribe or predictions to make. Anything too far outside the orthodoxy tends to be seen as threatening in a manner comparable to chaos itself. It often takes a disaster to inculcate hindsight and redefine the terms of the orthodoxy. Once this has happened, everyone who held to the old orthodoxy suddenly denies that they ever did so.

Is there a counter-example to this pessimistic argument in the banning of CFCs? There was, after all, no actual disaster resulting from ozone depletion. It was stopped in time. But the problem with success stories like this is that they immediately get taken for granted and forgotten, for similar reasons as above: because nobody likes to look back and reflect how close to the brink they once strayed. So maybe the lessons of past successes aren't learned or applied as widely as they might be.

reconmarine on "Climate Change: politics v reality"

reconmarine — Thu, 14 May 2009 02:05:41 +0100

I found Dr. Bina's comments interesting. He does his argument (and himself in my view) a disservice by his assertion "conservatives on the issue of climate and climate change are obviously
wrong because they don't give a hoot about the long-term health of this
planet and humanity." This statement (if not tongue in cheek) is so outlandish as to risk overshawoing the remainder of his post. If he is seriious, I challenge him to prove (by the same empriical approach he uses in the remainder of his post and presumably that he uses in his vaunted capactiy as a Distinguished researcher) its accuracy. Indeed, since I am by most measures a "conservative," but also one who is actually concerned about the health (indeed not only the long term but the short term as well) of this planet and humanity, his assertion is thus false. I also am personally familiar with numerous others who are also "conservatives" (of varying stripes) and yet, unblieiveable as it may seem, they also share a profound concern about the health of the planet and humanity.

sandman79 on "A politics of crisis: low-energy cosmopolitanism"

sandman79 — Thu, 07 May 2009 23:45:08 +0100

Stephen is right. Without building appropriate institutions for managing global crises - be they economic, environmental or security related - we will always be arguing over who to blame, when it's all too late.

The mooted Bretton Woods II meeting is more of the same: a desire to overhaul the globe's financial structure might sound like a good idea, but if you're not going to put the oversight of the institution in the hands of the people you're wasting your time. We will still get stronger states prioritising their short term interests because of their election cycles.

The call for a world parliament, for globalised democracy of some form, is getting stronger.

If you're interested, come join others at globaldemo.org. The site will be launched in December, but we're interested in those keen to get involved at this stage.

Cyrus Bina on "Climate Change: politics v reality"

Cyrus Bina — Thu, 07 May 2009 06:18:25 +0100

I am an energy and environmental economist, a student of climate change. I like what essentially Mr. Davey had to say in review of "The Politics of Climate Change" by Anthony Giddens. However, I am afraid, there's much to be said about Giddens's knowledge and vision on the question of climate change and where it's going and whether it's pure politics that needs triangulating, to be it in Bill Clinton's connotation, an admirer of Giddens' political propaganda.

First, those of us who are familiar with chaos theory and its implication for risk assessment know that calculable risk relies on a probability distribution and thus ling and systematic information about the particular risk under consideration. Therefore, the phenomena, such as earthquakes, etc., neither lend themselves to linear models (or their approximations) nor to probability theory.

Second, the phenomenon of risk, as calculable, must be distinguished from UNCERTAINTY, which is essentially incalculable, given the lack of the existence of prior probability distribution.

Third, climate and climate changes are the stuff of uncertainty the assessment of which needs cannot be probabilitized.

Fourth, the science of climate change cannot rely on the Newtonian Physics and the assumption that, for instance, a given magnitude of change at the beginning of the process would result in the same amount of change at the end. This misperception has already been proven by literature on chaos theory, for instance in patterns of weather.

Fifth, climate is an open system (as opposed closed systems), thus prone to unpredictable consequences.

Sixth, our global economic system (i.e., modern capitalism), too, is an open system, with unpredictable results of significant consequence. If you don't believe me look at the present economic crisis that has so far taken us on the verge of near-Great Depression.

Seventh, given the dialectical interaction of these two open systems (i.e., our economic system, on the one hand, and our environmental situation, on the other); one may imagine how the amplitude of UNCERTAINTY will be enormous at no time. However, we know for sure that any initial change at the beginning in such systems (i.e., similar sub-systems of both natural and social origins) will become necessarily several-fold as time passes. Therefore, climate might not be an exception.

Eighth, consequently, the real question concerning the climate is NOT that one should look at the "worst case" or "best case" scenarios. But whether one should rely on this sort of "scenario business" to begin with.

Finally, conservatives on the issue of climate and climate change are obviously wrong because they don't give a hoot about the long-term health of this planet and humanity. But, at least, they are honest and straight forward. A liberal (like our Johnny-come-late Lordship or, his triangulating supporter, Mr. Bill Clinton) is a 'bullshitter' who opportunistically craves for 'conventional wisdom' even on this subject at the crucial juncture in our predicament.

I hope that Mr. Davey realizes that I am in his corner but he needs to sharpen his analytical skills in order to give more punch to our concerned Lordship in this matter.

Sincerely,

Cyrus Bina, Ph.D.
Distinguished Research Professor of Economics
University of Minnesota (Morris Campus)

Website: http://cda.morris.umn.edu/~binac/index.htm

Cyrus Bina on "Climate Change: politics v reality"

Cyrus Bina — Wed, 06 May 2009 02:40:39 +0100

Second, the phenomenon of risk, as calculable, must be distinguished from UNCERTAINTY, which is essentially incalculable, given the lack of the existence of prior probability distribution.

Third, climate and climate changes are the stuff of uncertainty the assessment of which needs cannot be probabilitized.

Fifth, climate is an open system (as opposed closed systems), thus prone to unpredictable consequences.

Ninth, conservatives on the issue of climate and climate change are obviously wrong because they don't give a hoot about the long-term health of this planet and humanity. But, at least, they are honest and straight forward. A liberal (like our Johnny-come-late Lordship or, his triangulating supporter, Mr. Bill Clinton) is a 'bullshitter' who opportunistically craves for 'conventional wisdom' even on this subject at the crucial juncture in our predicament.

I hope that Mr. Davey realizes that I am in his corner but he needs to sharpen his analytical skills in order to give more punch to our concerned Lordship in this matter.

Sincerely,

Cyrus Bina, Ph.D.
Distinguished Research Professor of Economics
University of Minnesota (Morris Campus)

Website: http://cda.morris.umn.edu/~binac/index.htm

reconmarine on "Climate Change: politics v reality"

reconmarine — Wed, 06 May 2009 01:51:03 +0100

I may be mis-reading the tone of your post, but your resort to cold war "throw weight" arguments by counting noses of those who advocate as the only truth that evil man has caused the "crisis" of climate change and dismissing as corporate prostitutes those who deign to question this "truth," is not especially helpful to the honest debate I believe is needed. But perhaps that is the end game that you prefer--that we continue to rush headlong to "fix" the climate without any honest critical analysis. If so, you are certainly not alone.

bonzhe on "Climate Change: politics v reality"

bonzhe — Mon, 04 May 2009 23:50:09 +0100

What a shame that the silken gown of Lord Giddens' Third Way has frayed to reveal the worst excesses of market liberalism joined with the worst kind of stagnant self righteous authoritarianism.

What a shame that someone who once encouraged the development of 'alternative futures whose very propagation might help them be realised' turns, dejectedly, from his great lifetime project to this realpolitik which signals his withdrawal from ideals, standards, values.

What a shame that this is one book actually likely to be read by politicians, bigwigs and policy makers. Fortunately, though, a large number of us aren't prepared to leave them to it this time.

Write your books if it makes you feel better, oh illustrious new-labour peers. Times are a'changin'.

reconmarine on "Climate Change: politics v reality"

reconmarine — Fri, 01 May 2009 20:33:26 +0100

Like so many other of his fellow travelers, Mr. Davey uses as his premise the assumption (couched as irrefutable 'fact") that "climate change" is not only real in the sense of some dramatic threat to our continued existence that is universally agreed upon by the scientific community, but also that it is caused by human activity or is otherwise subject to being reversed by "green" behavior.

I am still waiting for an honest dialogue among the relevant sectors of the scientific community that fairly and non-politically addresses the competing views about climate change. Until that occurs and it is demonstrated that climate change is a real threat, any talk that assumes man has either caused it or can somehow intervene to positively affect it is both premature and arrogant.

The only "truth" that is evident at this juncture is that this issue is a shibboleth for those who seek increased control (by international and national governmental agencies) over commerce and the lifestyles of individuals.

Mcdv1975 on "Climate change in 2009: the defining issue"

Mcdv1975 — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:24:31 +0000

climate change is a natural phenomenon

politicians lie to us and try to scare us so they can squeeze more money out of us

richarddnorth on "Climate change in 2009: the defining issue"

richarddnorth — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 09:24:06 +0000

Richard D North
www.richarddnorth.com

I'm not sure that Tom regards me with either respect or affection, but a response is perhaps in order.

I rather agree that papers like the FT are a little inclined to go big on climate change in fits and starts. Quite like the rest of us.

The big problem with Tom's excitement that 2009 is a make-or-break year is that it isn't.

We are engaged on a long and complicated response to very uncertain problems.

Policy on energy security is meshing with policy on climate change (the ordinarily selfish former sometimes masquerading as the very earnest latter). The world may start to be parsimonious with fossil fuels, including Tom's beloved coal. (Or it may learn at acceptable cost to rob coal of its power to harm the planet.)

The process - especially in the degree to which it involves an element of selflesslness - is bound to be faltering and probably inadequate. It started several years ago and will run for many more.

Of course there may be climate tipping points. Their effect is ambiguous. Is the prospect or occurence of a mega-burb in the tundra motivating or de-motivating? Who knows?

2009 may produce some cataclysm which changes everything. But otherwise it is just another milestone - not even a very big one.

You will perhaps say that I am being complacent and I certainly do have a deep optimism about the human enterprise (especially its capacity to ride out disasters). But I am also, it is true, a terrible cynic, in the sense that I think my fellow human beings will contemplate with something like equanimity the hypothetical or even certain suffering of people not yet born. Hell, they don't even mind the suffering of people currently alive if they are strangers.

This must be true, since so many of us still declare that we care about climate change and yet do very little to diminish our contribution to it.