open Democracy News Analysis - ecology & place - Comments

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.

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.

sai bhargav on "Mahatma Gandhi’s achievement"

sai bhargav — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 12:01:04 +0100

dear sir,
please give the achievements in a straight foward language and mention them in points

Alexandra Lamb on "The "rights of nature""

Alexandra Lamb — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:02:05 +0000

I think this is a very interesting normative development in law that seeks to protect the environment and punish environmental offenders. In response to the comments above, the importance of this clause is that the environment is not to be considered property but a thing in and of itself. To respond to Mckeen, I do not think 'human rights' always supercede 'animal rights' etc - for example, who would side with the person who says 'it is my right to torture my cat as I please because it is my property' vs. the cat's right to live. Legislation that seeks to protect the environment or punsih harm done to it has unfortunately only succeeded in doing so on limited occasions. Look innumerable cases that are brought to the WTO that seek to limit trade that is specifically harmful to health and/or the environment that flop, companies that wontonly pollute and states that ignore their impact on their, and others' environments. I think it is time the environment's status was elevated in legal thinking

Wesley McKEEN on "The "rights of nature""

Wesley McKEEN — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 05:25:37 +0000

The RoN is an interesting concept, but as all rights is only practicable when it comes in conflict with the rights of others. In this case that's human beings, and I'm not sure that "nature" in-and-of-itself should ever be given precedence over humans in legal matters. In this case Hannah Arendt was correct in asserting the fundamental superiority of human rights over animal rights. Any environmentalism that attempts to protect nature as a good apart from its functionality or necessity to human beings is pointless--I agree with Greyson that economies have to develop sustainability, emphasizing the importance of the natural world as our habitat and life preserve. The world is too small and there are too many needy people (not to mention 'hungry' corporations) for an attempt at protecting the natural order in a non-utilitarian manner.

precycled on "The "rights of nature""

precycled — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 16:31:46 +0000

Ecuador is on the right track to correcting humanity's historical and soon to be fatal error of trying to create wealth by eating up nature. Yes, it's possible to make money by eating up nature, this is no way the same as generating wealth that can continue to sustain a population or an economy. This gives us an answer when someone complains that taking care of nature will damage their business, "you're stuck trying to keep the old broken down destructive economy on the road - let's instead together switch to the new 'positive development' economy, where development means positive impacts on people and their environment".

RoN is a fine concept but needs to be implemented in terms of human management of ecological surface areas (since nature herself can have no voice in a courtroom). The simplest practical way to do that would be to relocate the ownership of land and sea areas to future generations, effectively redefining today's property owners as guardians and trustees. Those guardians who have broken that trust by damaging ecological functions might retain their title to the area but access to the land could be transferred to a community based trust that regenerates the ecology and provides livelihoods to today's landless peoples. This scheme would create a market incentive to protect land since selling prices would be slashed if the guardian loses access rights.

There is another side to making RoN work economically. You need to run an economy which co-operates with nature. There is no point running a destructive economy and hoping that RoN will magically make things better. Although society has struggled to do this for decades, in essence it's not difficult to arrange. Just one new economic instrument (precycling insurance) is sufficient to ensure sustainable growth and a circular pattern of resource use, as is now planned in China.

For more info please see the article on page 5, 6 presented to international ministers by the UN this summer. http://amr.stakeholderforum.org/fileadmin/files/AMR_2008/AMR-Outreach-080703.pdf

James Greyson

jackfish on "Mahatma Gandhi’s achievement"

jackfish — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:48:39 +0000

The Trinity would be a terrific idea. But are we already to far gone at this time? Is total breakdown of our systems needed before we can make these changes? Probably.

Thomas Jefferson, the great second president of the United States, had hoped that the new nation he helped develop would become the same or near same vision that Ghandi had. (Of course that was before Ghandi's time and nearer to Henry David Thoreau's time). Jefferson wanted to see America become a nation of artisans, poets and ecologists. It would be terrific to adopt more of these ideas in our future.

Tony Fleming on "A politics of crisis: low-energy cosmopolitanism"

Tony Fleming — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:05:32 +0000

For those inclined to support a global parliament, the current Campaign to Establish a UN Parliamentary Assembly has gained the support of over 500 parliamentarians and thousands of other citizens, and has been endorsed by a number of national and regional parliaments. It is the most organized and professional approach to this goal I have seen put forward.

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

MarkB — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:55:43 +0000

I think the rise of the BNP in Stoke on Trent, worrying though it is, needs further explanation than this otherwise excellent article gives.

I may not be an authority on this, but it seemed obvious from the recent BBC Question Time political debate from Stoke that the BNP is growing in popularity not because it is hard right, but because its councillors appear to be working harder for local people, as opposed to the three mainstream parties who have become ideologically bankrupt flatmates in the same ivory tower. It has happened at national level as well.

So before the next mainstream politician spews forth the yawn-inducing cliche that the BNP is despicable, he or she might want to look at their own party and its multitudinous failings to find out why the extremists are on the ascendancy.

The two main parties supported the illegal war and would do so again and are about as pathetic as each other when it comes to tackling global warming. They also have the same short-sighted solutions for the economic crisis.

This drought of imagination in contemporary Western politics is undertandably driving people to the margins, which is where I've gone, but thankfully, I chose the Green Party.