1. EVIDENCE THAT THE EARTH'S TEMPERATURE IS GETTING WARMER IS UNCLEAR
Sceptic
Instruments show there has been some warming of the Earth's surface since 1979, but the actual value is subject to large errors. Most long-term data comes from surface weather stations. Many of these are in urban centres which have expanded in both size and energy use. When these stations observe a temperature rise, they are simply measuring the "urban heat island effect". In addition, coverage is patchy, with some regions of the world almost devoid of instruments. Data going back further than a century or two is derived from "proxy" indicators such as tree-rings and stalactites which, again, are subject to large errors.
Counter
Warming is unequivocal. Weather stations, ocean measurements, decreases in snow cover, reductions in Arctic sea ice, longer growing seasons, balloon measurements, boreholes and satellites all show results consistent with the surface record of warming. The urban heat island effect is real but small; and it has been studied and corrected for. Analyses by Nasa for example use only rural stations to calculate trends. Recently, work has shown that if you analyse long-term global temperature rise for windy days and calm days separately, there is no difference. If the urban heat island effect were large, you would expect to see a bigger trend for calm days when more of the heat stays in the city. Furthermore, the pattern of warming globally doesn't resemble the pattern of urbanisation, with the greatest warming seen in the Arctic and northern high latitudes. Globally, there is a warming trend of about 0.8C since 1900, more than half of which has occurred since 1979.
2. IF THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE WAS RISING, IT HAS NOW STOPPED
Sceptic.
Since 1998 - almost a decade - the record, as determined by observations from satellites and balloon radiosondes, shows no warming.
Counter.
1998 was an exceptionally warm year because of the strong El Nino event. Variability from year to year is expected, and picking a specific warm year to start an analysis is "cherry-picking"; if you picked 1997 or 1999 you would see a sharper rise. Even so, the linear trends since 1998 are still positive.
3. THE EARTH HAS BEEN WARMER IN THE RECENT PAST
Sceptic
The beginning of the last Millennium saw a "Mediaeval Warm Period" when temperatures, certainly in Europe, were higher than they are now. Grapes grew in northern England. Ice-bound mountain passes opened in the Alps. The Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than it is today.
Counter
There have been many periods in Earth history that were warmer than today - if not the MWP, then maybe the last interglacial (125,000 years ago) or the Pliocene (three million years ago). Whether those variations were caused by solar forcing, the Earth's orbital wobbles or continental configurations, none of those causes apply today. Evidence for a Mediaeval Warm Period outside Europe is patchy at best, and is often not contemporary with the warmth in Europe. As the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) puts it: "The idea of a global or hemispheric Mediaeval Warm Period that was warmer than today has turned out to be incorrect". Additionally, although the Arctic was warmer in the 1930s than in the following few decades, it is now warmer still.
4. COMPUTER MODELS ARE NOT RELIABLE
Sceptic
Computer models are the main way of forecasting future climate change. But despite decades of development they are unable to model all the processes involved; for example, the influence of clouds, the distribution of water vapour, the impact of warm seawater on ice-shelves and the response of plants to changes in water supply. Climate models follow the old maxim of "garbage in, garbage out".
Counter
Models are simply ways to quantify understanding of climate. They will never be perfect and they will never be able to forecast the future exactly. However, models are tested and validated against all sorts of data. Over the last 20 years they have become able to simulate more physical, chemical and biological processes, and work on smaller spatial scales. The 2007 IPCC report produced regional climate projections in detail that would have been impossible in its 2001 assessment. All of the robust results from modelling have both theoretical and observational support.
5. THE ATMOSPHERE IS NOT BEHAVING AS MODELS WOULD PREDICT
Sceptic
Computer models predict that the lower levels of the atmosphere, the troposphere, should be warming faster than the Earth's surface. Measurements show the opposite. So either this is another failing of the models, or one set of measurements is flawed, or there are holes in our understanding of the science.
Counter
Lower levels of the troposphere are warming; but measuring the exact rate has been an uncertain process, particularly in the satellite era (since 1979). Readings from different satellites need to be tied together, and each has its own problems with orbital decay and sensor drift. Two separate analyses show consistent warming, one faster than the surface and one slightly less. Within the uncertainties of the data, there is no discrepancy that needs to be dealt with. Information from balloons has its own problems but the IPCC concluded this year: "For the period since 1958, overall global and tropical tropospheric warming estimated from radiosondes has slightly exceeded surface warming".
6. CLIMATE IS MAINLY INFLUENCED BY THE SUN
Sceptic
Earth history shows climate has regularly responded to cyclical changes in the Sun's energy output. Any warming we see can be attributed mainly to variations in the Sun's magnetic field and solar wind.
Counter
Solar variations do affect climate, but they are not the only factor. As there has been no positive trend in any solar index since the 1960s (and possibly a small negative trend), solar forcing cannot be responsible for the recent temperature trends. The difference between the solar minimum and solar maximum over the 11-year solar cycle is 10 times smaller than the effect of greenhouse gases over the same interval.
7. A CARBON DIOXIDE RISE HAS ALWAYS COME AFTER A TEMPERATURE INCREASE NOT BEFORE
Sceptic
Ice-cores dating back nearly one million years show a pattern of temperature and CO2 rise at roughly 100,000-year intervals. But the CO2 rise has always come after the temperature rise, not before, presumably as warmer temperatures have liberated the gas from oceans.
Counter
This is largely true, but largely irrelevant. Ancient ice-cores do show CO2 rising after temperature by a few hundred years - a timescale associated with the ocean response to atmospheric changes mainly driven by wobbles in the Earth's orbit. However, the situation today is dramatically different. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere (35% increase over pre-industrial levels) is from human emissions. Levels are higher than have been seen in 650,000 years of ice-core records, and are possibly higher than any time since three million years ago.
8. LONG-TERM DATA ON HURRICANES AND ARCTIC ICE IS TOO POOR TO ASSESS TRENDS
Sceptic
Before the era of satellite observation began in the 1970s, measurements were ad-hoc and haphazard. Hurricanes would be reported only if they hit land or shipping. Arctic ice extent was measured only during expeditions. The satellite record for these phenomena is too short to justify claims that hurricanes are becoming stronger or more frequent, or that there is anything exceptional about the apparent shrinkage in Arctic ice.
Counter
The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment project notes that systematic collection of data in parts of the Arctic began in the late 18th Century. The US National Hurricane Center notes that "organised reconnaissance" for Atlantic storms began in 1944. So although historical data is not as complete as one might like, conclusions can be drawn. And the IPCC does not claim that global warming will make hurricanes more frequent - its 2007 report says that if anything, they are likely to become less frequent, but more intense.
9. WATER VAPOUR IS THE MAJOR GREENHOUSE GAS; CO2 IS RELATIVELY UNIMPORTANT
Sceptic
The natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth's surface about 33C warmer than it would otherwise be. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, accounting for about 98% of all warming. So changes in carbon dioxide or methane concentrations would have a relatively small impact. Water vapour concentrations are rising, but this does not necessarily increase warming - it depends how the water vapour is distributed.
Counter
Water vapour is essentially in balance with the planet's temperature on annual timescales and longer, whereas trace greenhouse gases such as CO2 stay in the atmosphere on a timescale of decades to centuries. The statement that water vapour is "98% of the greenhouse effect" is simply false. In fact, it does about 50% of the work; clouds add another 25%, with CO2 and the other greenhouse gases contributing the remaining quarter. Water vapour concentrations are increasing in response to rising temperatures, and there is evidence that this is adding to warming, for example in Europe. The fact that water vapour is a feedback is included in all climate models.
10. PROBLEMS SUCH AS HIV/AIDS AND POVERTY ARE MORE PRESSING THAN CLIMATE CHANGE
Sceptic
The Kyoto Protocol will not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases noticeably. The targets were too low, applied only to certain countries, and have been rendered meaningless by loopholes. Many governments that enthuse about the treaty are not going to meet the reduction targets that they signed up to. Even if it is real, man-made climate change is just one problem among many facing the world's rich and poor alike. Governments and societies should respond proportionately, not pretend that climate is a special case. And some economists believe that a warmer climate would, on balance, improve lives.
Counter
Arguments over the Kyoto Protocol are outside the realms of science, although it certainly will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions as far or as fast as the IPCC indicates is necessary. The latest IPCC Working Group 2 report suggest that the impact of man-made climate change will on balance be deleterious, particular to the poorer countries of the tropics, although colder regions may see benefits such as increased crop yields. Investment in energy efficiency, new energy technologies and renewables are likely to benefit the developing world.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
Compiled with advice from Fred Singer and Gavin Schmidt
Climate Change - countering the sceptics.
-
mark black
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:28 am
Mark
To me all this post demonstrates is the equivocal nature of the scientific evidence, yet you want to use this evidence as the founding justification for your scientific society.
I think this subject is very interesting because human caused climate change is a subject that began in empirical science but so many people have jumped on the band wagon and believed in it that we can never go back and view the subject dispassionately.
One tends to think of questions as starting in philosophy and moving into science, yet this question has gone the other way round.
Nick
To me all this post demonstrates is the equivocal nature of the scientific evidence, yet you want to use this evidence as the founding justification for your scientific society.
I think this subject is very interesting because human caused climate change is a subject that began in empirical science but so many people have jumped on the band wagon and believed in it that we can never go back and view the subject dispassionately.
One tends to think of questions as starting in philosophy and moving into science, yet this question has gone the other way round.
Nick
-
mark black
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:28 am
Nickolai,
I agree with you largely, but the problems don't end there. In a society where capitalist motivations direct the course of reasearch, where religious groups contest to make moral claims on our thoughts and behaviours, where knowledge is owned and applied or surpressed to the advantage of the owner, and where media sensationalize every half-read report into headline news - sceintific objectivity is left at the door of the laboratory.
It's very difficult in the circumstances to know what to credit as worthwhile information and what is twisted to the ends of some group interest. It does sceince and society no favours - and thus it is my contention that we put science on a higher shelf, beyond the reach of childish meddling.
Scientific knowledge is not certain, but always equivocal to greater or lesser degrees - and someone of your intelligence should recognize this as a virtue. The ability to strive in all seriousness and with great intelligence for understanding of a phenomena, and yet have the humility to accept that one's understanding is always subject to improvement, or even disproof in face of further evidence, seems a such a worthy and desirable quality as to be almost spiritual.
Behind each of the arguments presented for climate change are dedicated people, trekking out into the middle of nowhere to check rain and temperature guages, send up balloons, climb mountains to catalogue the uphill migration of species, drill ice cores, count tree rings...and anything else they can find to give them some insight, before feeding this data into a computer model the sceptic would either ignorantly or dishonestly dismiss as less than true of reality.
It behooves us not to treat lightly what is for good reason taken seriously by people who know better than we do, and it's particularly discreditable to turn thier virtues against them.
mark.
I agree with you largely, but the problems don't end there. In a society where capitalist motivations direct the course of reasearch, where religious groups contest to make moral claims on our thoughts and behaviours, where knowledge is owned and applied or surpressed to the advantage of the owner, and where media sensationalize every half-read report into headline news - sceintific objectivity is left at the door of the laboratory.
It's very difficult in the circumstances to know what to credit as worthwhile information and what is twisted to the ends of some group interest. It does sceince and society no favours - and thus it is my contention that we put science on a higher shelf, beyond the reach of childish meddling.
Scientific knowledge is not certain, but always equivocal to greater or lesser degrees - and someone of your intelligence should recognize this as a virtue. The ability to strive in all seriousness and with great intelligence for understanding of a phenomena, and yet have the humility to accept that one's understanding is always subject to improvement, or even disproof in face of further evidence, seems a such a worthy and desirable quality as to be almost spiritual.
Behind each of the arguments presented for climate change are dedicated people, trekking out into the middle of nowhere to check rain and temperature guages, send up balloons, climb mountains to catalogue the uphill migration of species, drill ice cores, count tree rings...and anything else they can find to give them some insight, before feeding this data into a computer model the sceptic would either ignorantly or dishonestly dismiss as less than true of reality.
It behooves us not to treat lightly what is for good reason taken seriously by people who know better than we do, and it's particularly discreditable to turn thier virtues against them.
mark.
All information is twisted towards interest groups, and these exist no less within 'scientific' fraternities than anywhere else. You seem to want to privelege interest groups that favour survival above the interest groups that you see hindering survival e.g capitalists. Yet there is nothing to suggest that capitalism is intrinsically deleterious to survival. For example, the capitalist who invests in solar panels and wind farms would probably make a killing. Is he selfish, or a wise philanthropic entrepreneur? Judgement can never be passed on any knowledge, nor the means through which it was procured, without a prior assumption (itself unevidenced) as to what is good and bad. I know goodness to you is what you term 'genetic and intellectual legacy', but really, what's so good about that. I'm seen the demise of various genetic and intellectual legacies, and not regretted them in the least.It's very difficult in the circumstances to know what to credit as worthwhile information and what is twisted to the ends of some group interest.
As for childish meddling, there is no level at which truth isn't distorted by interest groups. There is no dispassionate scientific priesthood, nor could there be. Truth, by being contingent, is both as good and as bad as it possibly could be.
Don't you ever get the profound sense that everything is just fine as it is? Even if that means the demise of us all? We humans are always chasing some kind of purpose, some kind of project. Haven't you ever felt the bliss of a kind of purposeless observation - letting it all go on without you?
Psychonaut said somewhere that your posts are anathema to philosophy. I agree with him on this because I view philosophers as the ones who don't get caught up in this all these fear... of extinction or otherwise. But at the same time, you've probably guessed that i see you as a kind of religious thinker, like a godless theologian. You're an active agent in this world like Trotsky, a thinking man of action. I hope you have the forum to communicate all this to the masses, because spend to long with effeminate philosophers and you'll end up disheartened.
-
mark black
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:28 am
Nickolai,
If all information is twisted to group interests - what's you problem with me? trotsky, theologians and psychonaut...i'm wounded. you must fear losing the argument to resort to such abuse. an anathema? indeed! then let us make an attempt at philosophy - and consider your assertion that:
mark.
If all information is twisted to group interests - what's you problem with me? trotsky, theologians and psychonaut...i'm wounded. you must fear losing the argument to resort to such abuse. an anathema? indeed! then let us make an attempt at philosophy - and consider your assertion that:
would you prefer pure capitalist economic theory - or real world economic practice? they are radically different but i believe i can show that either are deleterious to the survival prospects of the species.there is nothing to suggest that capitalism is intrinsically deleterious to survival.
mark.
All your scientific ideas and techniques for sustainable living could easily be disseminated by capitalists looking to make a quick buck. Yes the consumer would have to be convinced, through advertising, to spend their cash on such things but that is already happening with the organic food movement. The more the people can be convinced of this new way of living, the more the capitalists will make money and reinvest in the same initiatives. If one wind turbine generates more energy than the next one it will sell in larger numbers - that's capitalism.
Capitalism is an ethically neutral pattern of production and consumption which merely reflects the ethical mores of society. It is as amenable to sustainable living as unsustainable living.
But, this isn't something I've given a great deal of thought to so I'd be interested in ways to refute the above.
Capitalism is an ethically neutral pattern of production and consumption which merely reflects the ethical mores of society. It is as amenable to sustainable living as unsustainable living.
But, this isn't something I've given a great deal of thought to so I'd be interested in ways to refute the above.
-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
-
mark black
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:28 am
Nickolai,
The nest of issues you raise with this example is massive and complex - and I really cannot commit to educating you in the complexities of capitalism as a theory, capitalism in practice, and the energy market. It's too much. I'm sorry. Suffice to say that sustainability requires that opportunities are forgone - that limits are recognized - and technologies are applied on the basis of thier scientifically concieved merits, not on the basis of how many quick bucks can be garnered.
mark.
The nest of issues you raise with this example is massive and complex - and I really cannot commit to educating you in the complexities of capitalism as a theory, capitalism in practice, and the energy market. It's too much. I'm sorry. Suffice to say that sustainability requires that opportunities are forgone - that limits are recognized - and technologies are applied on the basis of thier scientifically concieved merits, not on the basis of how many quick bucks can be garnered.
mark.
-
koyaanisqatsi
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:31 pm
-
mark black
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:28 am
Koy,
I mean to say that I know more than Nickolai on the basis of his post, for he freely admits:
...that relate in turn to theoretical and practical problems with his proposal. But it is for him to pursue his interest in these matters if he truly knows little about them.
mark.
I mean to say that I know more than Nickolai on the basis of his post, for he freely admits:
I understand something of these issues, enough to know that three days at the keyboard would be too little time to answer his question. I'm not willing to commit to that - but I don't mean to insult the man, or pretend to knowledge I do not possess. He asked for:this isn't something I've given a great deal of thought to
...and I have given him three objections:ways to refute the above.
that sustainability requires that opportunities are forgone - that limits are recognized - and technologies are applied on the basis of thier scientifically concieved merits.
...that relate in turn to theoretical and practical problems with his proposal. But it is for him to pursue his interest in these matters if he truly knows little about them.
mark.
Mark,
In response to your three objections to capitalism:
1) Sustainability requires that opportunities be foregone.
This assumes that capitalism of necessity brings about a dimunition of resources. Yet what, if with rising domestic fuel bills, I decide it would be more cost effective to buy a solar panel. Would you suggest that I forego this opportunity and stuck with what i've got? No. Even though my motivation might be purely fiscal, there is still a hidden bonus to the environment. If oil is running out sustainable energy technologies might be a real growth industry which could undoubtedly operate through 'capitalism'.
Also the 'Second Life' computer game is a good example of how capitalist systems can exist virtually. If humnaity ever becomes absorbed in their virtual creations capitalism could remain with the environmental impact very much reduced.
2) That limits are recognised
Talk to any university executive nowadays and they will talk to you about the exorbitant growth in the knowledge economy. A university is very much like a capitalist business that charges fees to provide a service. Universities compete, there is a great deal of money to be made and the business credentials of a vice-chancellor are more important than their academic credentials. Yet the 'natural' resource being consumed by this rampant capitalist system is knowledge - a carbon-lite commodity. And it seems the sky is the limit as far as this is concerned. I'm assuming in your new society you would welcome the meteroic rise of any science faculty.
3) Technolgies applied on scientific merits
Every time any product is consumed in a capitalist system it is ultimately on its merit. If I learn that my donut contains 1000 kilojoules it is fine by me because i am putting on weight for a new part in a play. The next person might reject it on the exact same evidednce because they are trying to lose weight for their play. The point I'm making is that everything we consume is based on an evaluative decision based on our particular needs and desires. This evaluator selects between all available evidence, some of which might be expressed in conventional scientific terms such as kilojoules.
It seems to me that you see capitalism and rampant consumption as being either synonymous or at least co-implicated. In actual fact there is no necessary connection between capitalism and environental destruction at all.
You also seem to think that science can somehow transcend the irrationalities of the market place, and irrational behaviour in general. I'm assuming that you've read Kuhn, Polanyi, Feyerband considering your ambitions, yet they clearly haven't convinced you of anything. i guess this is why i find you difficult to understand because they've had a big impact on me. Also, can I ask: are you a scientist? I meet many scientists both as an acadmic and a clinician and very few subscribe to the ultra-scientism you espouse.
Have you ever been in a position where you've had to make a decision based on scientific evidence, but where there is no pre-existing doctrine to follow? I'm very frequently in that position and its a chastening experience.
In response to your three objections to capitalism:
1) Sustainability requires that opportunities be foregone.
This assumes that capitalism of necessity brings about a dimunition of resources. Yet what, if with rising domestic fuel bills, I decide it would be more cost effective to buy a solar panel. Would you suggest that I forego this opportunity and stuck with what i've got? No. Even though my motivation might be purely fiscal, there is still a hidden bonus to the environment. If oil is running out sustainable energy technologies might be a real growth industry which could undoubtedly operate through 'capitalism'.
Also the 'Second Life' computer game is a good example of how capitalist systems can exist virtually. If humnaity ever becomes absorbed in their virtual creations capitalism could remain with the environmental impact very much reduced.
2) That limits are recognised
Talk to any university executive nowadays and they will talk to you about the exorbitant growth in the knowledge economy. A university is very much like a capitalist business that charges fees to provide a service. Universities compete, there is a great deal of money to be made and the business credentials of a vice-chancellor are more important than their academic credentials. Yet the 'natural' resource being consumed by this rampant capitalist system is knowledge - a carbon-lite commodity. And it seems the sky is the limit as far as this is concerned. I'm assuming in your new society you would welcome the meteroic rise of any science faculty.
3) Technolgies applied on scientific merits
Every time any product is consumed in a capitalist system it is ultimately on its merit. If I learn that my donut contains 1000 kilojoules it is fine by me because i am putting on weight for a new part in a play. The next person might reject it on the exact same evidednce because they are trying to lose weight for their play. The point I'm making is that everything we consume is based on an evaluative decision based on our particular needs and desires. This evaluator selects between all available evidence, some of which might be expressed in conventional scientific terms such as kilojoules.
It seems to me that you see capitalism and rampant consumption as being either synonymous or at least co-implicated. In actual fact there is no necessary connection between capitalism and environental destruction at all.
You also seem to think that science can somehow transcend the irrationalities of the market place, and irrational behaviour in general. I'm assuming that you've read Kuhn, Polanyi, Feyerband considering your ambitions, yet they clearly haven't convinced you of anything. i guess this is why i find you difficult to understand because they've had a big impact on me. Also, can I ask: are you a scientist? I meet many scientists both as an acadmic and a clinician and very few subscribe to the ultra-scientism you espouse.
Have you ever been in a position where you've had to make a decision based on scientific evidence, but where there is no pre-existing doctrine to follow? I'm very frequently in that position and its a chastening experience.
-
mark black
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:28 am
Nickolai,
You're looking at things consistently from the consumers point of view, to the exclusion of the bigger picture. I think this is because you are addressing the implied criticism of your good self, but don't feel guilty. You have no choice. It's for governments and industry to enable you to live your life without it costing us the earth.
1) Opportunities to make profit forgone applies to the higher standards of production required for sustainability. There are many producers - each trying to undercut the other in the name of profit, and they must all forego certain opportunities to make profit, or none of them can. Thus, in many ways, capitalism is a race to the bottom - that's why the High Street is full of shops selling crap stuff for pennies which falls apart the second time it's used. This is why trawlers use nets that scrape the sea bed bare of life. This is why we cannot address climate change. This is not an efficient use of resources. It's a wasteful, destructive and careless use of resources in the name of profit.
2) Everyone has the right to own as much as they can, and so capitalism doesn't recognize that there are natural limits to it's productive activities, in that raw materials and the capacity of the earth to absorb pollution are finite. Climate change is an important example - but in many other ways, limits go unrecognized. This is largely because - when the principles of capitalism were laid down, we had wooden ships and it took two years to get round the world. This is no longer the case.
(The knowledge economy is interesting - but of little relevance to these arguments.)
3)
These three ideas are related to eachother in a number of complex ways, but this should give you a basic understanding of the bigger picture. Hope this helps.
mark.
You're looking at things consistently from the consumers point of view, to the exclusion of the bigger picture. I think this is because you are addressing the implied criticism of your good self, but don't feel guilty. You have no choice. It's for governments and industry to enable you to live your life without it costing us the earth.
1) Opportunities to make profit forgone applies to the higher standards of production required for sustainability. There are many producers - each trying to undercut the other in the name of profit, and they must all forego certain opportunities to make profit, or none of them can. Thus, in many ways, capitalism is a race to the bottom - that's why the High Street is full of shops selling crap stuff for pennies which falls apart the second time it's used. This is why trawlers use nets that scrape the sea bed bare of life. This is why we cannot address climate change. This is not an efficient use of resources. It's a wasteful, destructive and careless use of resources in the name of profit.
2) Everyone has the right to own as much as they can, and so capitalism doesn't recognize that there are natural limits to it's productive activities, in that raw materials and the capacity of the earth to absorb pollution are finite. Climate change is an important example - but in many other ways, limits go unrecognized. This is largely because - when the principles of capitalism were laid down, we had wooden ships and it took two years to get round the world. This is no longer the case.
(The knowledge economy is interesting - but of little relevance to these arguments.)
3)
But what are the terms of this merit? As the examples above show, there's a big difference between the most profitable and the most efficient way of doing something. It may be profitable, for example, to clear cut the forest, and less profitable to mangage the forest. But which has greater merit? It depends on the terms. If profit is your highest value then you will clear cut the forest - whereas if sustainability is your highest value you will manage it. Similarly, if you can build a windmill or dig for coal, science would say build the windmill, profit would say dig for coal.Every time any product is consumed in a capitalist system it is ultimately on its merit.
These three ideas are related to eachother in a number of complex ways, but this should give you a basic understanding of the bigger picture. Hope this helps.
mark.
The essence of my thoughts are being expressed in a different thread with PP, but in essence I am saying:
1) Capitalist systems entail the production and consumption of commodities deemed valuable by society. Capitalism doesn't make some things more valuable than others, we do.
2) Not all these commodities have a material impact on the environment. So there is no necessary connection between capitalism and unsustainable living.
3) A shift in societal values would cause a shift in the types of commodities produced and consumed. Captains of Industry might head up grotesquely capitalist systems that might be grossly unfair but which have a very low environmental impact.
All this railing against capitalism is a form of shooting the messenger. You also conflate material consumption with capitalism when they have a merely correlative relationship.
1) Capitalist systems entail the production and consumption of commodities deemed valuable by society. Capitalism doesn't make some things more valuable than others, we do.
2) Not all these commodities have a material impact on the environment. So there is no necessary connection between capitalism and unsustainable living.
3) A shift in societal values would cause a shift in the types of commodities produced and consumed. Captains of Industry might head up grotesquely capitalist systems that might be grossly unfair but which have a very low environmental impact.
All this railing against capitalism is a form of shooting the messenger. You also conflate material consumption with capitalism when they have a merely correlative relationship.
-
mark black
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:28 am
Nickolai,
1) In 1890 professor Paul La Cour used wind generated electricity to electrolyze an aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide to produce a hydrogen/oxygen gas he used to heat and light the igh School at Askov, Denmark, where he worked.
In 1939, Rudloph Erren fled Nazi germany and came to Britian, where he converted dozens of trucks to run on hydrogen, and advised using the excess capacity of generated electricity to produce hydrogen for transport fuel.
Despite the availability of these technologies however - and given warnings of climate change and fuel crises since the 1960's the technologies remain unapplied.
If the consumer is king - a concept called Consumer Soveriegnty in classical economic thoery, then why do we not have solar panels girding the equator, producing hydrogen 24/7, providing us with limitless, pollution free energy? Why do cars not use hydrogen fuel if it's been possible since the 1930's?
Industry makes the first choice between which technologies to apply - and we get to choose between thier choices.
2) The murderer didn't kill people everyday - and therefore he is not a murderer????
3) See argument for consumer soveriegnty above.
After: No, I'm sorry Nickolai, but that's not how it works. If profit is the highest value then sustainability, scientific merit and limits to resources go unrecognized. I wish there were a way around this but capitalism must end or be the end of us. I don't like either very much - but in a pinch I'll choose the former.
mark.
1) In 1890 professor Paul La Cour used wind generated electricity to electrolyze an aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide to produce a hydrogen/oxygen gas he used to heat and light the igh School at Askov, Denmark, where he worked.
In 1939, Rudloph Erren fled Nazi germany and came to Britian, where he converted dozens of trucks to run on hydrogen, and advised using the excess capacity of generated electricity to produce hydrogen for transport fuel.
Despite the availability of these technologies however - and given warnings of climate change and fuel crises since the 1960's the technologies remain unapplied.
If the consumer is king - a concept called Consumer Soveriegnty in classical economic thoery, then why do we not have solar panels girding the equator, producing hydrogen 24/7, providing us with limitless, pollution free energy? Why do cars not use hydrogen fuel if it's been possible since the 1930's?
Industry makes the first choice between which technologies to apply - and we get to choose between thier choices.
2) The murderer didn't kill people everyday - and therefore he is not a murderer????
3) See argument for consumer soveriegnty above.
After: No, I'm sorry Nickolai, but that's not how it works. If profit is the highest value then sustainability, scientific merit and limits to resources go unrecognized. I wish there were a way around this but capitalism must end or be the end of us. I don't like either very much - but in a pinch I'll choose the former.
mark.
1) The reason the technologies didn't get applied is because the consumer didn't recognise the value of them. The reason they didn't realsie the value is because there was only little urgency regarding the depletion of oil. Had the been an urgency then R&D would have commenced.
2) I referred to a necessary connection between capitalism and unsustainability like when p = q. This is part of my argument relating to the possibilty of capitalsim without unsustainability. (Your murderer analogy is inadequate. To say a murderer stays a murderer requires a reification of a concept in the same way as saying a river stays a river despite the completely different set of water molecules.)
3) I won't try to defend consumer sovereignty - I'm sure you've heard it all before. But don't you see the consumer as being at all complicit in the failure of solar panels to adorn every roof.
After: I shall repeat this once more. if you don't see my point then we'll have to agree to differ. The profit, nor consumption through profit, doesn't have to be in material resources, it therefore doesn't have to wreak damage on the environment.
Nikolai
2) I referred to a necessary connection between capitalism and unsustainability like when p = q. This is part of my argument relating to the possibilty of capitalsim without unsustainability. (Your murderer analogy is inadequate. To say a murderer stays a murderer requires a reification of a concept in the same way as saying a river stays a river despite the completely different set of water molecules.)
3) I won't try to defend consumer sovereignty - I'm sure you've heard it all before. But don't you see the consumer as being at all complicit in the failure of solar panels to adorn every roof.
After: I shall repeat this once more. if you don't see my point then we'll have to agree to differ. The profit, nor consumption through profit, doesn't have to be in material resources, it therefore doesn't have to wreak damage on the environment.
Nikolai