5 ms·

It's telling that the actions proposed by the report are a laundry list of socialist reforms (I mean socialist in a neutral, technical way: no judgement implied

by Udik 6y ago

It's telling that the actions proposed by the report are a laundry list of socialist reforms (I mean socialist in a neutral, technical way: no judgement implied). Examples: "wealth taxes", "public investment, including to create decent job guarantees, alongside working-time reductions", "banning advertising in public spaces", "developing a wider set of gender-transformative indicators of economic progress", "social dialogue at all levels to ensure that the voices of workers in affected industries, women, low-income and marginalized groups are heard". Etc. 27% of global CO2 emissions are due to electricity generation. They could be cut to almost zero if we only decided to build nuclear power plants. That's an easy, clear and direct technical solution to the technical issue of dangerous levels of CO2 emissions. Otherwise, if what you're concerned with is inequality, why mix that with the issue of emissions and ask for "climate justice"? The concept of a "world carbon budget" is a way to claim that the size of the pie is predetermined and unchangeable and that the only way to ensure others can get a slice of it is to reduce the size of ours. Let's start producing electricity in a clean way and the total size of the pie will grow.

_Microft 6y ago
The "world carbon budget" is calculated by how much additional carbon can be put into the shorter term carbon cycle before blowing the chance of limiting average global warming to a given temperature difference (1.5°C above pre-industrial levels here). This pie actually IS limited.
xupybd 6y ago
There has been a strange union between environmental concerns and socialist / communist concerns. I'm not sure why but it's not often you see one with out the other. For example the green new deal. I say strange because both are independent and don't require the other to be addressed in tandem.
- pjc50 6y ago
  Both follow from caring about other people and the process of solidarity. If you don't actually care about other people, and you're already on the wealthy side, then why do you care about environmental damage? If the sea level rises, you're not going to be in the flooded area? If the forest burns, do you care if you've got filtered air and fire insurance?
  - zpeti 6y ago
    Believe it or not all human beings care about the environment they live in, and I imagine most west coast Silicon Valley billionaires wouldn’t actually like to move in the case of flooding or wild fires “just because they’re rich”. Also - most humans once they reach a basic level of food, shelter, actually start caring a lot about their local environment. It’s mostly poverty that puts you in a desperate situation where you don’t care about what you destroy to get food or shelter. But just look around, who generally around you are the most vocal environmentalist. For me it’s pretty wealthy people.
    - markvdb 6y ago
      > Believe it or not all human beings care about the environment they live in Most sociopaths and psychopaths will only care about their lifetime. They tend to drift to the top of social hierarchy [0][1][2], and exert disproportionate influence from there. Climate change and leadership by older psycho/sociopaths are a particularly poisonous combination. Climate change is long term, but the sociopath's goal horizon shrinks with age. A 75 years old sociopath couldn't care less about ten years ahead, because it doesn't concern her personally. "Après nous le déluge!", a famous French saying, captures it fairly well. Rough meaning: "We'll be gone before the biblical downpour starts." We can't keep psychopaths or sociopaths from the top of the social ladder. That's human nature. We might however succeed at blocking _all_ very old people from certain top spots on the social ladder. On the issue of climate change, I think we should try, because their personal interests are impossible to align with the general public's. Have a look at the professional opinion of several prominent psychologists on the mental health of the current US president [3][4][5]. Then look at the net negative effect of his climate policies. [0] https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.925 https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.925 [1] https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27188-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27188-6 [2] https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.365 https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.365 [3] https://www.salon.com/2019/03/04/harvard-psychiatrist-donald-trumps-actions-are-signs-of-a-severe-continuous-mental-disturbance_partner/ https://www.salon.com/2019/03/04/harvard-psychiatrist-donald... [4] https://www.newsweek.com/trump-harvard-psychologist-turkey-economy-tweet-mental-health-hold-1463884 https://www.newsweek.com/trump-harvard-psychologist-turkey-e... [5] https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-sociopath-mental-health-harvard-psychiatry-professor-1468441 https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-sociopath-mental-healt...
- Udik 6y ago
  I agree. Green movements predate the dominance of climate change as an environmental issue; they began in the late 1970s in Germany as a brand of socialism. The "four pillars" of the original German Green party are listed on Wikipedia as Ecological wisdom, Social justice, Grassroots democracy and Nonviolence; later expanded by the green movements in the US in the mid-eighties in the following principles: Decentralization Community-based economics Post-patriarchal values (later translated to ecofeminism and Ethics of care) Respect for diversity Global responsibility Future focus I think this marriage between actual environmental concerns and a socialist ideology is the reason of the so called "rejection of science" by the right. The fact is that the actual science of climate change comes with a hefty baggage of left-wing ideas that found a pressing technical issue to piggyback on. If the choice is between accepting or rejecting the whole package, conservative/ libertarian people will reject it entirely.
  - dgb23 6y ago
    I would agree with your statement if the right was proposing anything of substance in that regard.
    - Udik 6y ago
      Proposing anything of substance would mean having recognized at least in part the validity of the arguments coming from the opposite end of the political spectrum, with the risk of supporting the attached ideology. Which is hard to do. But anyway, here's what the right could propose: let's replace all our energy generation from non-renewable sources with nuclear power. Every single watt of it. I'm sure there would be no objections from that side. And on the left?
      - pjc50 6y ago
        The left objections to nuclear power are rooted in weapons proliferation and concerns about fallout. The proven reactor designs all require uranium enrichment and produce plutonium. That's why Iran's reactor is hugely controversial. The designs that don't do this are either not proven or certainly not widely deployed.

by Udik 6y ago

_Microft 6y ago

The "world carbon budget" is calculated by how much additional carbon can be put into the shorter term carbon cycle before blowing the chance of limiting average global warming to a given temperature difference (1.5°C above pre-industrial levels here). This pie actually IS limited.

xupybd 6y ago

There has been a strange union between environmental concerns and socialist / communist concerns. I'm not sure why but it's not often you see one with out the other. For example the green new deal. I say strange because both are independent and don't require the other to be addressed in tandem.

pjc50 6y ago
Both follow from caring about other people and the process of solidarity. If you don't actually care about other people, and you're already on the wealthy side, then why do you care about environmental damage? If the sea level rises, you're not going to be in the flooded area? If the forest burns, do you care if you've got filtered air and fire insurance?
- zpeti 6y ago
  Believe it or not all human beings care about the environment they live in, and I imagine most west coast Silicon Valley billionaires wouldn’t actually like to move in the case of flooding or wild fires “just because they’re rich”. Also - most humans once they reach a basic level of food, shelter, actually start caring a lot about their local environment. It’s mostly poverty that puts you in a desperate situation where you don’t care about what you destroy to get food or shelter. But just look around, who generally around you are the most vocal environmentalist. For me it’s pretty wealthy people.
  - markvdb 6y ago
    > Believe it or not all human beings care about the environment they live in Most sociopaths and psychopaths will only care about their lifetime. They tend to drift to the top of social hierarchy [0][1][2], and exert disproportionate influence from there. Climate change and leadership by older psycho/sociopaths are a particularly poisonous combination. Climate change is long term, but the sociopath's goal horizon shrinks with age. A 75 years old sociopath couldn't care less about ten years ahead, because it doesn't concern her personally. "Après nous le déluge!", a famous French saying, captures it fairly well. Rough meaning: "We'll be gone before the biblical downpour starts." We can't keep psychopaths or sociopaths from the top of the social ladder. That's human nature. We might however succeed at blocking _all_ very old people from certain top spots on the social ladder. On the issue of climate change, I think we should try, because their personal interests are impossible to align with the general public's. Have a look at the professional opinion of several prominent psychologists on the mental health of the current US president [3][4][5]. Then look at the net negative effect of his climate policies. [0] https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.925 https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.925 [1] https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27188-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27188-6 [2] https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.365 https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.365 [3] https://www.salon.com/2019/03/04/harvard-psychiatrist-donald-trumps-actions-are-signs-of-a-severe-continuous-mental-disturbance_partner/ https://www.salon.com/2019/03/04/harvard-psychiatrist-donald... [4] https://www.newsweek.com/trump-harvard-psychologist-turkey-economy-tweet-mental-health-hold-1463884 https://www.newsweek.com/trump-harvard-psychologist-turkey-e... [5] https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-sociopath-mental-health-harvard-psychiatry-professor-1468441 https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-sociopath-mental-healt...
Udik 6y ago
I agree. Green movements predate the dominance of climate change as an environmental issue; they began in the late 1970s in Germany as a brand of socialism. The "four pillars" of the original German Green party are listed on Wikipedia as Ecological wisdom, Social justice, Grassroots democracy and Nonviolence; later expanded by the green movements in the US in the mid-eighties in the following principles: Decentralization Community-based economics Post-patriarchal values (later translated to ecofeminism and Ethics of care) Respect for diversity Global responsibility Future focus I think this marriage between actual environmental concerns and a socialist ideology is the reason of the so called "rejection of science" by the right. The fact is that the actual science of climate change comes with a hefty baggage of left-wing ideas that found a pressing technical issue to piggyback on. If the choice is between accepting or rejecting the whole package, conservative/ libertarian people will reject it entirely.
- dgb23 6y ago
  I would agree with your statement if the right was proposing anything of substance in that regard.
  - Udik 6y ago
    Proposing anything of substance would mean having recognized at least in part the validity of the arguments coming from the opposite end of the political spectrum, with the risk of supporting the attached ideology. Which is hard to do. But anyway, here's what the right could propose: let's replace all our energy generation from non-renewable sources with nuclear power. Every single watt of it. I'm sure there would be no objections from that side. And on the left?
    - pjc50 6y ago
      The left objections to nuclear power are rooted in weapons proliferation and concerns about fallout. The proven reactor designs all require uranium enrichment and produce plutonium. That's why Iran's reactor is hugely controversial. The designs that don't do this are either not proven or certainly not widely deployed.