Government Responses to Climate Change

[iNow]

But I wasn't defending people's right to pollute, I was saying that demonizing their pollutive habits doesn't accomplish anything.

 

I don't know, mate. You might struggle trying to support that point. It brings people to action. It brings the issue to awareness. It shines a spotlight. It motivates change. It causes others not to do it. It clearly defines what is and what is not allowed in a populace.

 

For example, I have no problem demonizing child molestors, because what they do is wrong.

 

When you distill this concept down to it's root, you will see that some things in a mature society really SHOULD be ostracized.

[ecoli]

For example, I have no problem demonizing child molestors, because what they do is wrong.

But we're not living in Sodom and Gomorrah here. Molestation is not a common behavior, so treating it as criminal makes sense.

 

We all pollute to some degree, so it doesn't make sense to criminalize it, like Pangloss says. We should get people to stop, to be sure, but demonizing something that everyone ultimately does is not useful, because it's hypocritical.

[iNow]

It's only hypocritical if you fail to apply the "endemoned" spotlight to yourself as well. There's nothing inherently wrong with ostracizing immature and ignorant behavior. I'm not suggesting people get locked up for driving a Hummer with no muffler and for running the air conditioner in the winter. I'm suggesting that change happens when everyone around such morons scorns them for doing so, and encourages them to do better so as to avoid future scorn.

[Pangloss]

I don't know, mate. You might struggle trying to support that point. It brings people to action. It brings the issue to awareness. It shines a spotlight. It motivates change. It causes others not to do it. It clearly defines what is and what is not allowed in a populace.

 

For example, I have no problem demonizing child molestors, because what they do is wrong.

 

When you distill this concept down to it's root, you will see that some things in a mature society really SHOULD be ostracized.

 

Actually I can prove it in one simple statement: High gas prices have done more in three years to change behavior than your demonization has done in 30+. People have been convinced that global warming is real for some time now, but when it's come down to packing Timmy and Lisa and Fido and the stroller and all the Christmas toys for that three-state drive to gramma's, and your choice is a small hybrid or a big, safe SUV, and gas was only 99 cents a gallon, well let's just say the Ford F-150/Explorer platform was number one for a reason.

 

People don't like being told they're wrong. Liberals make movies and conservatives watch them, then they laugh and walk out of the theater and liberals are left scratching their heads, wondering how a guy like Bush can get re-elected after all the demonizing they've been doing. "Gosh, Neon Star Blue, I just don't understand why people can vote that way! What is Fred Neck's problem? Quick, tell him he's stupid some more, maybe just just wasn't paying attention!"

 

So yah, you certainly can equate SUV drivers to child molestors if you wish, nobody's stopping you. But that's been the liberal "way" for decades now, and all its gotten you is the rise of Conservative Talk Radio, a surge on Republican partisanship and a whole string of frustrating policies.

 

I'd agree that educating and trying persuasion hasn't done much either, but that's why I think careful regulation and incentives are the answer, combined with investment in practical science and engineering solutions (e.g. hybrids with electric-only modes, compact fluorescent lighting, etc).

[Skye]

Land use is something that is too often ignored in claimate change planning I think. It has a range of effects on climate: altering the surface temperature, rate of evaporation, carbon sequestration by biomass, etc. It also affects emissions. Town planning has an effect on transport and housing, which can affect emissions. Agriculture is source of emissions, but also of alternate fuels and materials. Poor forestry practices can also increase emissions, but good practices can reduce emissions.

[CDarwin]

Actually I can prove it in one simple statement: High gas prices have done more in three years to change behavior than your demonization has done in 30+. People have been convinced that global warming is real for some time now, but when it's come down to packing Timmy and Lisa and Fido and the stroller and all the Christmas toys for that three-state drive to gramma's, and your choice is a small hybrid or a big, safe SUV, and gas was only 99 cents a gallon, well let's just say the Ford F-150/Explorer platform was number one for a reason.

 

Social pressure certainly can work to stomp out certain behavior patterns, there's no quibbling over that. The problem with demonizing polluters is, I suppose, that the pressure isn't applied as consistently or as generally as would be necessary to affect mass change. It has in some circles, though, such as with the green chique movement amongst the liberal upper crust. I suppose in a heterogeneous culture like ours, it's only economics that can effect behavior in the whole society.

 

Which I why I support a carbon tax, by the way.

[Pangloss]

I agree with that. Social pressure is one of those things that's occassionally useful but too-often gets pushed too far. The problem isn't SUVs or the intelligence of their owners, it's the pollution they put in the air.

 

Picture a battery-powered Chevy Suburban rolling up alongside Gerald Broflovski's Toyota Prius and accusing HIM of not caring about the planet. That's a perfectly viable future.

[bascule]

Land use is something that is too often ignored in claimate change planning I think. It has a range of effects on climate: altering the surface temperature, rate of evaporation, carbon sequestration by biomass, etc. It also affects emissions. Town planning has an effect on transport and housing, which can affect emissions. Agriculture is source of emissions, but also of alternate fuels and materials. Poor forestry practices can also increase emissions, but good practices can reduce emissions.

 

I *entirely* agree, and too often the OMGCO₂ argument can overshadow this very important point.

 

In the end, I think regional solutions to a problem which is essentially the end result of a multitude of regional problems is the real solution. Unfortunately policy makers seem completely unaware that regionally-based solutions, if instituted collectively across the globe, can have a far greater impact than bullshit like Kyoto, which gives lip service to problem but offers no practicable solutions.

[iNow]

Actually I can prove it in one simple statement: High gas prices have done more in three years to change behavior than your demonization has done in 30+.

To be fair, that's not a proof, just an assertion. Regardless, I quite see your point, and happen to agree that the cost issue is a strong catalyst for change. I'm just saying... so is social pressure. The concept of it being pushed "too far" is also far from objective.

 

 

Your too far might be me saying, "petroleum is such a silly product," whereas someone else's too far might be me saying, "you're killing your children and grandchildren because of your short-sighted selfishness you ignorant tool!"

 

 

Po-tay-toe... Po-tah-toe.

[Rev Blair]

Well that's just it, right? Who doesn't need to make a living? Isn't everyone pretty much in the same boat there?

 

I guess that's why I object to proposals of radical change, because it's not just evil corporations and decrepit wealthy tax-dodgers who would be harmed.

 

We don't need the rampant consumerism, the conspicuous consumption, and the waste to make a living though. This is a relatively new phenomenon...something that arguably didn't start until after WWII and certainly wasn't a way of life before the 1950s.

 

My mother's parents didn't engage in it, yet they sent five kids to university. My father's parents didn't engage in it either...three kids there. Their friends and peers didn't engage in it.

 

The rich always did it, but not the rest of society.

 

My grandfather owned three trucks in the 40+ years that I knew him. That's it, three. They were 2 wheel drive pick-ups with vinyl seats. They were purchased when it was no longer economical to repair the one they were replacing. My mother is still using the last one...a 1978 GMC...to haul gardening supplies and garbage.

 

Nobody had ever heard of reduce, reuse, recycle when I was a kid. I learned it from my grandparents who did it as a matter of course. They weren't environmentalists, they just weren't wasteful. You didn't throw things away, you reused them or gave them to somebody who could use them. You didn't hire somebody to something that you could do yourself. If possible, you spent a little extra for quality so you'd save money by not having to replace whatever you were buying.

 

If we had continued to live in that way, but adopted environmental practices as we became aware of them, this world would be in far better shape than it is right now.

 

Instead we were sold a completely unsustainable model of infinite growth supported by infinite greed...all on a finite planet with finite resources. We were told that we could have it all and we could have it right now.

 

The result has been a credit crunch and environmental destruction. We've been told that we are rich, but I bet that most on here carry a credit card balance, a mortgage, and likely a car or consumer loan. We aren't rich, we're debtors.

[iNow]

We don't need the rampant consumerism, the conspicuous consumption, and the waste to make a living though. This is a relatively new phenomenon...something that arguably didn't start until after WWII and certainly wasn't a way of life before the 1950s.

This isn't completely on topic, but I saw a very interesting special recently put out by the BBC which speaks exactly to "what may have changed."

 

 

It's called: The Century of the Self

 

It discusses the application of early psychoanalytical ideas on the masses, and can be viewed online in four 1-hour episodes:

 

The Century of the Self - PART 1

The Century of the Self - PART 2

The Century of the Self - PART 3

The Century of the Self - PART 4

[Rev Blair]

I've seen that series, iNow, and recommend it to everybody who wants to learn a little more. I think it's a little too simplistic, but it covers a lot of the problem.

 

I wouldn't say that any of this is off-topic though. The number one reason that governments cite for their inaction on environmental issues is the economy, and our economy is built on a model of consumerism.

 

Just using automobiles as an example:

 

Every time there is talk about the big three losing money, the issue is the same...they have trouble competing with more efficient cars from overseas. When times are good, they lobby like hell not to have have improve their mileage standards, fight safety innovations, and do very little R&D. When times are bad, they lay off workers and cut back benefits.

 

What the governments of Canada and the US should have been doing since the 1970s is bringing in more and tougher standards. I relate those to emissions, since I don't think it matters how a vehicle is powered as long as it is clean. I'd also relate them to safety...how come Volvo can build a safer car than GM or Ford?

 

Instead we were sold SUVs...glorified pick-up trucks that operated on 50 year old technology. That trend is ending now and the big three are laying people off and screaming for government handouts. Meanwhile they are still flogging their pollution machines every chance they get.

[Pangloss]

To be fair, that's not a proof, just an assertion. Regardless, I quite see your point, and happen to agree that the cost issue is a strong catalyst for change. I'm just saying... so is social pressure. The concept of it being pushed "too far" is also far from objective.

 

 

Your too far might be me saying, "petroleum is such a silly product," whereas someone else's too far might be me saying, "you're killing your children and grandchildren because of your short-sighted selfishness you ignorant tool!"

 

 

Po-tay-toe... Po-tah-toe.

 

Well put, and I agree.

[CaptainPanic]

I've voted for "other (please expand)".

 

I have chosen for my local geographical, cultural and political situation.

 

In the Netherlands, and in Europe, state owned enterprises used to be quite common. I think that the state should buy the energy companies, and the power-cable company (they're separate) and reform them into sustainable companies. We only privatized the energy sector about 10-20 years ago, and it hasn't brought much good regarding sustainable energy.

 

Bringing the energy sector back under state control will come at some costs, and at the same time it will create lots of jobs. Tax money can be used. I oppose any scenario where the state simply says "it's ours now". I think we should buy it back, not take it.

 

Btw, this is probably totally impossible in the USA, which is traditionally much more capitalistic than Europe... with much less tax income per capita.

 

Our government has previously dealt with large projects in infrastructure that would never make lots of money. All the water works for example...

 

Worldwide we need to reduce CO2 emissions. Locally, we might want to increase protection against the climate change (floods from rivers, sea, and/or drought). Both are projects so massive that they should be state-controlled. Perhaps even on a European level (EU).