posted to Climate Concern Group 1/28/09
You have to laugh about the long range predictions for the environment, though. The planners show ocean levels continuing to rise for 1000+ years, even if CO2 increases are halted immediately. The curves all have a different slope depending on how soon.
That well founded idea has been in all the literature, even from the economists, for a decade or more. see: http://www.synapse9.com/issues/ClimateLags.pdf
Right, it’s not only that things get more expensive, but more profitable to make more expensive too. On the downslope as shortages develop faster than expectations are broken the prices of things are driven up. Then people who control resources profit from accelerating their depletion which vastly worsens the problem.
I think that’s a good general explanation for why the last tree on the Easter Islands was cut down. It was the one with the highest profit to the owner. That that also effectively terminated what was probably a kind of “tree worship” civilization is the curiosity…
Continue reading Our great & tragic hope for bridging the gap
response to Carbon Equity newsletter www.carbonequity.info 1/20/09
Your list of current climate change media sources is amazing, thanks, but troubling too, showing our deep confusion.
It’s amazing what an outpouring of warnings and commitments to act on solutions there is… The trouble is that all the warnings are responding to impacts caused by the profit making solutions of the past, and the present solutions are all intended to work by stimulating multiplying profit too. For a very simple reason that is bound to have the same sort of multiplying impacts. Multiplying money is not “inherently” bad, just inherently bad when the earth is already suffering from our multiplying impacts. Continue reading The big contradiction in our Climate values.
from RunningOnEmpty post 1/18/08
Thinking 100 years into the future with assumptions from 100 years in the past… is a problem. It’s tragic to hear of Barak’s crystal clear statement about global warming.
We know that preventing global warming requires physically lowering our total resource footprint on the earth so we can live sustainably. That directly conflicts with all his other policies for continually swelling our footprint by restoring continual economic growth.
Cost will rule and no one who remains competitive will be using clean energy. Continue reading The tragedy of Barak
Re: Climate change media 6 January 2009 CarbonEquity, Climate Action Centre, Melbourne To subscribe (one email per week) send blank email
David, reply 1/10/09
Interesting list of studies and alternatives! In the same way that “clean coal” seems to never have existed except as wishful thinking, “good growth” never has either, and most of the solutions on the list depend on it.
There are a lot of other ways that some of our “solutions” multiply problems too. It’s a major theme of what we’re dealing with. All our increasingly insolvable problems were created by widely supported solutions of the past. Continue reading Wishful solutions that multiply problems later
Steve Salmony, 1/12/09 reply to post below
Very nice letter, clear and solid. I think one more thing that people will need to understand in some way is “why the rules changed”, and then address what rules changed and what new rules apply.
The basic public support for “sustainability” has been achieved, we just seem clueless as to what it really means or what we’d need to do to achieve it.
The big dilemma is that everyone’s favorite solution, self-restraints and technology efficiencies, don’t have the intended effect on the whole system, *especially* if they work. Continue reading Why “new rules” apply? – Nature changed them
1/9/09 post to ClimateConcernGroup
re: Consumer-side v. Producer-side Environmentalism http://links.org.au/node/843
No doubt it does help to look around at all the contradictions, and try to connect them, but from a scientific view each side of a circle still represents the same object. The difference between the “production” and “consumption” side, from a systems view of the economic issues, is that they’re two sides of the same circle.
The actual control available for natural system circles is usually not in which side of the circle you favor, but the economic multiplier that adds or subtracts an increment to both sides of the circle every time a dollar goes all the way around it. Continue reading “Producer side” & “Consumer side” as one circle