3 ms·

So I guess the expected reaction is some sort of outrage? Seriously, who expects anything different when most of the world's decision makers gather in one city

by mmelin 17y ago

So I guess the expected reaction is some sort of outrage? Seriously, who expects anything different when most of the world's decision makers gather in one city? I'm impressed that they don't need more vehicles to make things work. The result everyone hopes for from Copenhagen offsets any negative impact from these "limos and private planes" by so many order of magnitudes it's not even funny. This is simply attention-seeking whining.

ErrantX 17y ago
I think the main part of it is how politically short sighted NOT making a big effort to do it "green" is. Sort of like this: http://www.graduatedtaste.com/2008/11/20/if-richard-branson-ran-gm/ http://www.graduatedtaste.com/2008/11/20/if-richard-branson-...
cwan 17y ago
I think a large part of the problem is the crass level of hypocrisy involved here. We look to leaders to be well... leaders. To paraphrase others, it's difficult to think of climate as a problem when the people who are telling us it's a problem aren't behaving as such. It's as if they're asking the rest of us to make all the sacrifices when they make few to none. As I've said elsewhere, I've personally made some changes and tried to reduce waste and I do think that AGW seems likely though the science appears far from certain.
- ugh 17y ago
  Small stuff won't solve global warming. Not yours, not mine, not politicians. It is of no use to care so much about these small details.
  - cwan 17y ago
    If global warming is such a big problem as claimed then our collective actions will make a difference. Thinking it doesn't would be like startups not pinching pennies and unnecessarily increasing the burn rate with an underlying assumption of success.
    - ugh 17y ago
      Collective. Not a buncha' people meeting once. Those people meet to (hopefully) negoiate how to build useful incentives for a collective change in behaviour. And that's (incentives) what's the important thing. Not symbolic fluff.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
blhack 17y ago
Spot on. One way of looking at this situation is that it is an investment. Yes, we have to spend some of our resources in getting these people together to talk, but the return on our investment (the resources saved as a result) is going to be maaany times greater. I would think investment is something that most people on this board would understand...
- cwan 17y ago
  Yes, many of us do understand investment. We also seek to maximize our returns by minimizing our "investment". In this analogy, this would just be a crass spend of capital in anticipation of returns that are far from certain (ie it's not certain that we will even get an agreement or that the agreement we get is even enforceable).
  - Retric 17y ago
    You are forgetting about the risk reward. Let's assume there is a 1% chance we will reduce global green houses gas production due to this conference. And let's assume to total benefit was a 1% reduction in global emissions for a single day. If you do the math that's still a better than break even propitiation. The sad truth is a carbon tax set at 1cent per gallon of gas or that equivalent amount of CO2 produced from any other fossil fuel to directly build wind farms would provide enough money to fund a significant reduction in green house gasses. Start playing around with the numbers and 40 years till zero green house gasses produced by the electric grid or home heating is a reasonable possibility. Transportation is a hard problem, but even if we ignore it we can still do a lot.
- mseebach 17y ago
  So, in business terms, it's like the venture capitalist flying his private jet out and chartering a limo to meet with a portfolio company to tell them they're pulling the plug the because times are tough and they have to save where they can. Might still not be the jet and the limo throwing off the balance, but it's still hypocritical. At least he could be direct and say "We don't believe in your business any more, and we're not going to throw good money after bad. So long". Especially given all the talk about the sacrifices we all have to make, it's curious how politicians, activist leaders and especially public servants can't at all be bothered to make those sacrifices.
mattmaroon 17y ago
Exactly. What's the alternative? President Obama taking a commercial flight to Copenhagen, then a bus to the summit? I'd love to be the Secret Service agent in charge of that detail.
- mseebach 17y ago
  The American president is a target and must be protected. It's when it's argued that the precautions you take for yourself doesn't apply to others in the same situation that the wheels come off. Fortunately, no-one is nearly as critical a target as POTUS.

by mmelin 17y ago

ErrantX 17y ago

I think the main part of it is how politically short sighted NOT making a big effort to do it "green" is. Sort of like this: http://www.graduatedtaste.com/2008/11/20/if-richard-branson-ran-gm/ http://www.graduatedtaste.com/2008/11/20/if-richard-branson-...

cwan 17y ago

I think a large part of the problem is the crass level of hypocrisy involved here. We look to leaders to be well... leaders. To paraphrase others, it's difficult to think of climate as a problem when the people who are telling us it's a problem aren't behaving as such. It's as if they're asking the rest of us to make all the sacrifices when they make few to none. As I've said elsewhere, I've personally made some changes and tried to reduce waste and I do think that AGW seems likely though the science appears far from certain.

ugh 17y ago
Small stuff won't solve global warming. Not yours, not mine, not politicians. It is of no use to care so much about these small details.
- cwan 17y ago
  If global warming is such a big problem as claimed then our collective actions will make a difference. Thinking it doesn't would be like startups not pinching pennies and unnecessarily increasing the burn rate with an underlying assumption of success.
  - ugh 17y ago
    Collective. Not a buncha' people meeting once. Those people meet to (hopefully) negoiate how to build useful incentives for a collective change in behaviour. And that's (incentives) what's the important thing. Not symbolic fluff.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]

blhack 17y ago

Spot on. One way of looking at this situation is that it is an investment. Yes, we have to spend some of our resources in getting these people together to talk, but the return on our investment (the resources saved as a result) is going to be maaany times greater. I would think investment is something that most people on this board would understand...

cwan 17y ago
Yes, many of us do understand investment. We also seek to maximize our returns by minimizing our "investment". In this analogy, this would just be a crass spend of capital in anticipation of returns that are far from certain (ie it's not certain that we will even get an agreement or that the agreement we get is even enforceable).
- Retric 17y ago
  You are forgetting about the risk reward. Let's assume there is a 1% chance we will reduce global green houses gas production due to this conference. And let's assume to total benefit was a 1% reduction in global emissions for a single day. If you do the math that's still a better than break even propitiation. The sad truth is a carbon tax set at 1cent per gallon of gas or that equivalent amount of CO2 produced from any other fossil fuel to directly build wind farms would provide enough money to fund a significant reduction in green house gasses. Start playing around with the numbers and 40 years till zero green house gasses produced by the electric grid or home heating is a reasonable possibility. Transportation is a hard problem, but even if we ignore it we can still do a lot.
mseebach 17y ago
So, in business terms, it's like the venture capitalist flying his private jet out and chartering a limo to meet with a portfolio company to tell them they're pulling the plug the because times are tough and they have to save where they can. Might still not be the jet and the limo throwing off the balance, but it's still hypocritical. At least he could be direct and say "We don't believe in your business any more, and we're not going to throw good money after bad. So long". Especially given all the talk about the sacrifices we all have to make, it's curious how politicians, activist leaders and especially public servants can't at all be bothered to make those sacrifices.

mattmaroon 17y ago

Exactly. What's the alternative? President Obama taking a commercial flight to Copenhagen, then a bus to the summit? I'd love to be the Secret Service agent in charge of that detail.

mseebach 17y ago
The American president is a target and must be protected. It's when it's argued that the precautions you take for yourself doesn't apply to others in the same situation that the wheels come off. Fortunately, no-one is nearly as critical a target as POTUS.