3 ms·

I was almost sure that is going to be about climate change. It reminds me of: http://www.thenation.com/article/capitalism-vs-climate/ http://www.thenation.com/a

I was almost sure that is going to be about climate change. It reminds me of: http://www.thenation.com/article/capitalism-vs-climate/ http://www.thenation.com/article/capitalism-vs-climate/ Even though the article proposes something (green energy as opportunity for capitalism), I think there is a huge problem with climate change for free market proponents, and deeply inside they know it. I don't see how the issue, which is "the fossil fuels have to stay in the ground", can be dealt with free market only. And I wish it had a solution, so we could get these people to cooperate and acknowledge that there is a climate change problem (for which there is a lot of scientific evidence).

kaybe 11y ago
Actually the issue is later in the chain, "don't increase the atmospheric amount of climate gas" in first order. You're free to take out the fossil fuels if you do not use them as fuels but make plastic or whatever (which may lead to other unrelated problems), or if you manage to someone keep the CO2 from being emitted it should also be ok (and again can lead to problems, this time related, such as local and global risk of leakage etc). On the other hand, other greenhouse gases such as methane or those from deforestation are also problematic. The order of magnitude right now is a lot smaller than the first problem, but that may not stay so. There are also some talks of deliberate climate engineering, which, in first order, may have chances to work (most involved on a deeper level think it's too risky). All in all, the issue is quite complicated and there are a lot of possible (technical, not just economical/social) solutions with advantages and disadvantages, which I think makes the issue even harder to acknowledge.
- Asbostos 11y ago
  Yes, it's certainly more complicated than most proponents or opposers of it claim. I think that's because they both have a "solution affinity" for their preferred solution. Geoengineering has all sorts of promising ideas but talking about them publicly is like talking about making a safer cigarette - it's dilutes the arguments of people who've already been charmed by another solution (stop using oil and cars and grow your own vegetables).
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Asbostos 11y ago
I notice in a lot of writing about climate change that people tend to try to convince the reader that it exists, both you and the article's authors mentioned the lot of scientific evidence. It makes it sound like permanent argument mode. It also helps us forget that there's no reliable scientific evidence and certainly no consensus about what, if any, harm climate change will do to us and if it does, whether we'll have time to adapt. Somehow the debate seems to be between "it's true and there's lots of evidence" and "it's not true and I don't believe it" but in reality we really have no idea what it will do. Maybe we don't actually have to leave all the oil in the ground afterall and a few extra degrees turns out to be not much of a problem.
- asgard1024 11y ago
  > whether we'll have time to adapt I wish you were right. Unfortunately, the very same vocal people (for example former Czech president Vaclav Klaus) who proclaimed that "adaptation is not a problem" now cry a river when there is a couple thousands refugees at the border from regions that are in war, probably due to drought, probably due to global warming. > Maybe we don't actually have to leave all the oil in the ground afterall and a few extra degrees turns out to be not much of a problem. We can always burn it. I don't see how we lose anything by leaving it there.
clarkmoody 11y ago
> dealt with free market only Show me a truly free market, then we'll talk. The solution to pollution might just be allowing for property rights in the rivers, oceans, and air, which is not the case now. Since the state owns those regions of the environment, then market forces cannot be brought to bear in the air and water, only state misadventures and mismanagement.
giaour 11y ago
There's always the possibility that solar energy will become so cheap that it doesn't make economic sense to waste resources extracting fossil fuels from the ground.
- Qwertious 11y ago
  That's possible, but we don't have a mechanism that can cause it and it's unlikely to happen anytime soon on its own.

kaybe 11y ago

Actually the issue is later in the chain, "don't increase the atmospheric amount of climate gas" in first order. You're free to take out the fossil fuels if you do not use them as fuels but make plastic or whatever (which may lead to other unrelated problems), or if you manage to someone keep the CO2 from being emitted it should also be ok (and again can lead to problems, this time related, such as local and global risk of leakage etc). On the other hand, other greenhouse gases such as methane or those from deforestation are also problematic. The order of magnitude right now is a lot smaller than the first problem, but that may not stay so. There are also some talks of deliberate climate engineering, which, in first order, may have chances to work (most involved on a deeper level think it's too risky). All in all, the issue is quite complicated and there are a lot of possible (technical, not just economical/social) solutions with advantages and disadvantages, which I think makes the issue even harder to acknowledge.

Asbostos 11y ago
Yes, it's certainly more complicated than most proponents or opposers of it claim. I think that's because they both have a "solution affinity" for their preferred solution. Geoengineering has all sorts of promising ideas but talking about them publicly is like talking about making a safer cigarette - it's dilutes the arguments of people who've already been charmed by another solution (stop using oil and cars and grow your own vegetables).

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Asbostos 11y ago

I notice in a lot of writing about climate change that people tend to try to convince the reader that it exists, both you and the article's authors mentioned the lot of scientific evidence. It makes it sound like permanent argument mode. It also helps us forget that there's no reliable scientific evidence and certainly no consensus about what, if any, harm climate change will do to us and if it does, whether we'll have time to adapt. Somehow the debate seems to be between "it's true and there's lots of evidence" and "it's not true and I don't believe it" but in reality we really have no idea what it will do. Maybe we don't actually have to leave all the oil in the ground afterall and a few extra degrees turns out to be not much of a problem.

asgard1024 11y ago
> whether we'll have time to adapt I wish you were right. Unfortunately, the very same vocal people (for example former Czech president Vaclav Klaus) who proclaimed that "adaptation is not a problem" now cry a river when there is a couple thousands refugees at the border from regions that are in war, probably due to drought, probably due to global warming. > Maybe we don't actually have to leave all the oil in the ground afterall and a few extra degrees turns out to be not much of a problem. We can always burn it. I don't see how we lose anything by leaving it there.

clarkmoody 11y ago

> dealt with free market only Show me a truly free market, then we'll talk. The solution to pollution might just be allowing for property rights in the rivers, oceans, and air, which is not the case now. Since the state owns those regions of the environment, then market forces cannot be brought to bear in the air and water, only state misadventures and mismanagement.

giaour 11y ago

There's always the possibility that solar energy will become so cheap that it doesn't make economic sense to waste resources extracting fossil fuels from the ground.

Qwertious 11y ago
That's possible, but we don't have a mechanism that can cause it and it's unlikely to happen anytime soon on its own.