UN 95% certain that climate change is caused by humans

[Metsfanmax]

That's your version of carbon tax. In the version that will be mandated, the system will be the winner, and those who work to bring it about for the system.

You do see that you are supporting something you don't support, right?

Your perspective is inherently defeatist; it suggests that we can never attempt to influence government in a way that is net beneficial to society, since the attempt will always be corrupted. Not only is this empirically denied by real efforts by grassroots organizations to influence change, but it also creates a pessimistic mood that is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You have to believe that you can create real change if you're going to have a chance to do it.

[_sabotage_]

I don't have to believe it, I can put my back into it and do it. Believe all you want, you could be ridding yourself of the system everyday. And the easier this becomes for people, the higher the quality it represents then the less dependent on government we become.

The government does all in its power to prevent this, co-opting all debates to fit their own ends. When a grassroots society acquires a sufficient market share, the government is happy to market them products, but a truly sustainable design has no benefit for the government as we are trading knowledge and methods of working with what is already available abundantly.

[Metsfanmax]

I don't have to believe it, I can put my back into it and do it. Believe all you want, you could be ridding yourself of the system everyday. And the easier this becomes for people, the higher the quality it represents then the less dependent on government we become.

The government does all in its power to prevent this, co-opting all debates to fit their own ends. When a grassroots society acquires a sufficient market share, the government is happy to market them products, but a truly sustainable design has no benefit for the government as we are trading knowledge and methods of working with what is already available abundantly.

The problem of global warming precludes individual action to limit one's own emissions from doing anything, as it is an inherently collective problem. Even if you kill yourself today, the world will be much warmer in 100 years. Your individual contribution has an impercetible effect on the total, and removing yourself from the grid therefore is almost meaningless to the scale of the problem. When faced with this, the only rational approach is to go for the solution that forces large-scale change but that can be achieved through individual action. This, of course, is lobbying your representative in Congress.

[_sabotage_]

My grandfather was head of Fishery and Wildlife under Reagan, he helped destroy our environment for corporate profit. Find someone else to tell your fairy tales of congress to.

At some point you will have to come to grips with the fact that what happens in the government is what they intend to happen

[BigBallinStalin]

That's your version of carbon tax. In the version that will be mandated, the system will be the winner, and those who work to bring it about for the system.

You do see that you are supporting something you don't support, right?

Your perspective is inherently defeatist; it suggests that we can never attempt to influence government in a way that is net beneficial to society, since the attempt will always be corrupted. Not only is this empirically denied by real efforts by grassroots organizations to influence change, but it also creates a pessimistic mood that is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You have to believe that you can create real change if you're going to have a chance to do it.

Discarding the consequences of reinforcing the status quo in the attempt of promoting optimal public policies (which will be modified, thus suboptimal or worse than before) doesn't help. You'd have to start at a more fundamental level: e.g. public opinion. One way is to build awareness of what voters are actually dealing with, what the limits of central planning are, what the capabilities of the markets and civil society are, etc. That's the educational project which is largely the goal of libertarians.

Another way is to ignore the rules of the status quo. Some people I know do this by buying land somewhere and becoming more self-sufficient, or as isolated as they can be away from government and its consequences. Sabotage seems to be doing this. All activities within the shadow economy (good and bad) exemplify this route as well.

I'd agree with you that his method may not be the best, but it may prove useful. It's kind of like having a group of proto-Amish, who could eventually opt out of much of the federal government system and instead provide largely for themselves--not economically, but also politically (e.g. they have their own welfare system).

[Metsfanmax]

That's your version of carbon tax. In the version that will be mandated, the system will be the winner, and those who work to bring it about for the system.

You do see that you are supporting something you don't support, right?

Your perspective is inherently defeatist; it suggests that we can never attempt to influence government in a way that is net beneficial to society, since the attempt will always be corrupted. Not only is this empirically denied by real efforts by grassroots organizations to influence change, but it also creates a pessimistic mood that is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You have to believe that you can create real change if you're going to have a chance to do it.

Discarding the consequences of reinforcing the status quo in the attempt of promoting optimal public policies (which will be modified, thus suboptimal or worse than before) doesn't help. You'd have to start at a more fundamental level: e.g. public opinion. One way is to build awareness of what voters are actually dealing with, what the limits of central planning are, what the capabilities of the markets and civil society are, etc. That's the educational project which is largely the goal of libertarians.

Suppose we assume that there is some probability X of success through legislating in the status quo method, and 1 - X probability of not succeeding, and further instilling the status quo. We must weight each of those probabilities by the expected consequence of each scenario. The latter scenario is only slightly marginally more worse than the status quo. The former scenario is much better than the status quo because of the prevention of expected harms. Therefore if (X * profits from changing the law) > ( (1 - X) * harms from failure ), it is worth attempting to make the change.

Also, you neglect the possibility of change to the status quo method of doing things through the status quo method. If people see that ordinary citizens can convince Congresspeople to make a wide-scale change to improve society, they may be motivated to become more involved in the democratic process and educated on issues which pertain to them, instead of being defeatist and assuming that it doesn't make a difference for them to participate.

[_sabotage_]

Assume we just start doing the things we think should happen and start encouraging others through knowledge and aid. This avoids Kafka's door.

Congress houses greed and hate, why should I submit to it?

[Metsfanmax]

Assume we just start doing the things we think should happen and start encouraging others through knowledge and aid. This avoids Kafka's door.

Congress houses greed and hate, why should I submit to it?

Because, sometimes, the ends justify the means.

[_sabotage_]

To someone who believes in God, congress reflects the negative aspects of choices we can take. Entrusting the devil with the work of God is what gets the devil his ends.

[BigBallinStalin]

Also, you neglect the possibility of change to the status quo method of doing things through the status quo method.

No, I don't. For example, the reduction of tariffs was done through government. That was a good idea.

That's your version of carbon tax. In the version that will be mandated, the system will be the winner, and those who work to bring it about for the system.

You do see that you are supporting something you don't support, right?

Your perspective is inherently defeatist; it suggests that we can never attempt to influence government in a way that is net beneficial to society, since the attempt will always be corrupted. Not only is this empirically denied by real efforts by grassroots organizations to influence change, but it also creates a pessimistic mood that is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You have to believe that you can create real change if you're going to have a chance to do it.

Discarding the consequences of reinforcing the status quo in the attempt of promoting optimal public policies (which will be modified, thus suboptimal or worse than before) doesn't help. You'd have to start at a more fundamental level: e.g. public opinion. One way is to build awareness of what voters are actually dealing with, what the limits of central planning are, what the capabilities of the markets and civil society are, etc. That's the educational project which is largely the goal of libertarians.

Suppose we assume that there is some probability X of success through legislating in the status quo method, and 1 - X probability of not succeeding, and further instilling the status quo. We must weight each of those probabilities by the expected consequence of each scenario. The latter scenario is only slightly marginally more worse than the status quo. The former scenario is much better than the status quo because of the prevention of expected harms. Therefore if (X * profits from changing the law) > ( (1 - X) * harms from failure ), it is worth attempting to make the change.

The underlined are not true; they're just assumptions which make your position seem much better than it really is.
For example:
(a) the neglected option, "doing nothing," could be better ("doing nothing" could be a public policy, thus fit within your approach, but it entails a totally different starting point from yours, which is "do something"). For example, the 1919 public policy response to that recession was essentially 'do nothing'. The consequences were much better compared to the consequences of 'do something' during the 1930s, which prolonged and worsened the depression.*

(b) reinforcing the status quo is not always "slightly worse than the status quo." It can be much worse, and/or it can have cumulative effect, e.g. we get a stupid way to govern ourselves within 100 years.

(c) Assuming you can measure all expected harms and benefits and develop a sound way for comparing them, then sure.


Your conclusion holds true if utilitarianism holds true. Utilitarianism is useful only if we can have the sound tools for making interpersonal comparisons of utility (benefits minus harm). However, utilitarianism is not the only moral path, and it lacks a sound way of making such comparisons, so it can easily be abused by its adherents. This consequence doesn't matter if you use utilitarianism in your backyard; it's a problem if you put yourself in a larger seat of power.

Another note. When you engage in an action for public policy, it's really just an action that leads to a distribution of potential outcomes (it can't be: 'either this or that'), and the optimal amount at the end, which is required for your conclusion, is unknowable because of uncertainty and of incomplete information (which highlights the unsoundness of your conclusion).

* Final note. The problem of the counterfactual. Some paths can never be known, so we're stuck within this realm of unknown soundness, so we have to do the best we can in coming to our conclusions. Of course, that doesn't stop policymakers from blundering forward with very little foresight and understanding. I just want to highlight this nagging feature of any debate in any social science and philosophy.

[Metsfanmax]

That's your version of carbon tax. In the version that will be mandated, the system will be the winner, and those who work to bring it about for the system.

You do see that you are supporting something you don't support, right?

Your perspective is inherently defeatist; it suggests that we can never attempt to influence government in a way that is net beneficial to society, since the attempt will always be corrupted. Not only is this empirically denied by real efforts by grassroots organizations to influence change, but it also creates a pessimistic mood that is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You have to believe that you can create real change if you're going to have a chance to do it.

Discarding the consequences of reinforcing the status quo in the attempt of promoting optimal public policies (which will be modified, thus suboptimal or worse than before) doesn't help. You'd have to start at a more fundamental level: e.g. public opinion. One way is to build awareness of what voters are actually dealing with, what the limits of central planning are, what the capabilities of the markets and civil society are, etc. That's the educational project which is largely the goal of libertarians.

Suppose we assume that there is some probability X of success through legislating in the status quo method, and 1 - X probability of not succeeding, and further instilling the status quo. We must weight each of those probabilities by the expected consequence of each scenario. The latter scenario is only slightly marginally more worse than the status quo. The former scenario is much better than the status quo because of the prevention of expected harms. Therefore if (X * profits from changing the law) > ( (1 - X) * harms from failure ), it is worth attempting to make the change.

The underlined are not true; they're just assumptions which make your position seem much better than it really is.
For example:
(a) the neglected option, "doing nothing," could be better ("doing nothing" could be a public policy, thus fit within your approach, but it entails a totally different starting point from yours, which is "do something"). For example, the 1919 public policy response to that recession was essentially 'do nothing'. The consequences were much better compared to the consequences of 'do something' during the 1930s, which prolonged and worsened the depression.*

(b) reinforcing the status quo is not always "slightly worse than the status quo." It can be much worse, and/or it can have cumulative effect, e.g. we get a stupid way to govern ourselves within 100 years.

(c) Assuming you can measure all expected harms and benefits and develop a sound way for comparing them, then sure.


Your conclusion holds true if utilitarianism holds true. Utilitarianism is useful only if we can have the sound tools for making interpersonal comparisons of utility (benefits minus harm). However, utilitarianism is not the only moral path, and it lacks a sound way of making such comparisons, so it can easily be abused by its adherents. This consequence doesn't matter if you use utilitarianism in your backyard; it's a problem if you put yourself in a larger seat of power.

Another note. When you engage in an action for public policy, it's really just an action that leads to a distribution of potential outcomes (it can't be: 'either this or that'), and the optimal amount at the end, which is required for your conclusion, is unknowable because of uncertainty and of incomplete information (which highlights the unsoundness of your conclusion).

* Final note. The problem of the counterfactual. Some paths can never be known, so we're stuck within this realm of unknown soundness, so we have to do the best we can in coming to our conclusions. Of course, that doesn't stop policymakers from blundering forward with very little foresight and understanding. I just want to highlight this nagging feature of any debate in any social science and philosophy.

Utilitarianism is valuable because it also teaches us about the ramifications of "doing nothing." As you say, "doing nothing" can be better. But it can also be really, really bad -- and this is what is currently in store for us. The fossil fuel industry shows no real signs of decline, and if we continue to emit carbon dioxide at ever increasing rates as a species, we are very probably going to have a bad time in 100 years. The science is clear on this. It would be one thing if there were any signs that the market would switch completely to alternative power sources, of its own accord, in the next five years or so. Is there any sign that it will do so? I think not. There is currently no economic benefit to being the one to take the risk to make a large investment in shifting the grid to, say, solar or nuclear. Therefore we are relying completely on waiting for solar to reach grid parity. Even when it does, it's not going to even mostly replace fossil fuels for areas like transportation, and we will wait for the development of better and better batteries for vehicles (batteries are, I think, the real step that will transport us into "the future"). So there's little incentive in the market as it is for correcting the problem; this is the result of a market distortion (externality) whereby we do not pay for the damage we are inflicting on society when we consume a product.

The way that utilitarianism can guide us is in recognizing that we are culpable for the "doing nothing" option if we could have done something to prevent it. The fact that there are probabilities involved does not fundamentally change the equation. All good policy decisions are probabilistic in nature. What you instead seem to object to is subjective judgments. The problem is that this can lead to paralysis even if most would agree that the result of the paralysis would be a very bad thing. It is true that not everyone would agree that the warmed globe is bad for them. But most reasonable people can agree that the warmed globe is bad for most people. And so if we are utilitarian, we act to prevent the harm to the greatest number, even if that means doing something that is inconvenient for a minority.

So the essential thesis here is that the advocates of "doing nothing" (e.g. letting the market play out without regulation) are still culpable for the situation that occurs afterward. This is not just the default method that we compare all other options to, and then choose to 'act' only if the rewards are great enough. Instead, we have a choice to go down one path or the other, and we must choose the path with the greatest chance of success, weighted by the magnitude of that success.

So then we come to the issue of, how do we weigh these things? But to an extent, the above answers that. We don't need to be super precise in our answers, because we make a choice either way. So we make the choice that is best governed by the information we have. There is a very bad, negative impact associated with doing nothing; there is a very slightly marginally bad impact assocated with doing something and failing (since implementing a law that ends up making the fossil fuel industry richer doesn't change the end-game scenario either in terms of our political process, or the switch that will eventually happen to renewables and nuclear). No, I can't provide a precise quantification of these. I can only convince you that we have to make a choice, and that the impacts of global warming are bad enough that they massively outweigh the alternative scenario.

Also, you neglect the possibility of change to the status quo method of doing things through the status quo method.

No, I don't. For example, the reduction of tariffs was done through government. That was a good idea.

Actually, that's not really what I am referring to. What I mean is that if we use this effort as a catalyzing action, it is, in a sense, reclaiming our democracy. It shows that grassroots efforts can be enough to stand up against powerful lobbying efforts. Some people seeing this will recognize that they have a voice in their government, more so than they previously thought, and it can lead to greater civic participation and education via motivation in being involved in the democratic process.

[_sabotage_]

Or they just become tacitly complicit. In Kafka's story, the guard appears when the man does and leaves when the man is gone. The guard is the action of man lining up at a door that is not intended to open.

The government does not create independence from the system, they place a guard at the gates, and you may wait as long as you like. Or you could just leave and do what you intended without trying to go through them. If what you create withstands criticism, of which there will be all sorts, then it will be adopted by the people, but never by the government.

[Night Strike]

The government doing nothing led the US to cut emissions beyond the prescriptions of the Kyoto Protocol, even though we refused to ratify it.

[Metsfanmax]

The government doing nothing led the US to cut emissions beyond the prescriptions of the Kyoto Protocol, even though we refused to ratify it.

Night Strike, it's hard to discuss this with you when you make statements that are in direct contradiction with the facts. The Kyoto Protocol would have required us to cut carbon dioxide emissions to 7% below 1990 levels, whereas currently we are > 5% above the 1990 level in carbon dioxide emissions.

[_sabotage_]

So invest in thorium, hemp, compressed air, and other carbon negative industries which reduce emissions and ease long range infrastructure projects. Invest in 3D printing using hemp cellulose. Invest in mushroom technology to eliminate or concentrate negative externalities. Petition BP to release their 80,000 litres of biofuel per acre patent to green groups, solicit Bill Gates to allow communities to make use of the battery designed by students which he bought up, called the "missing link" in alternative energy. Invest in energy reduction designs which don't break. Buy a piece of land and plant trees. Volunteer your energy to groups who need help with a project you respect, design a website where people can open source plans which can be put in place anywhere, read up on alternatives and spread the word on good ones.

In short put "your" money and time where your mouth is. Climate changes. Security is in local resources and knowledge to maximize their use with minimum inputs, not in creating interest groups which profit off the concern of others and inherently need to balance the level of concern through propaganda to maintain their existence.

[AndyDufresne]

--Andy

[Phatscotty]

Human are funny.

[Metsfanmax]

Human are funny.

You made this post two months ago, and I responded to it then. Quoting for full effect.

One thing I know for sure is that there is NOT consensus amongst the scientific community, and as time goes on it seems the global warming theories are being challenged and refuted more and more, and being backed up or verified less and less.

You are simply incorrect about the lack of consensus. 97% of peer-reviewed climate science papers agree that global warming is occurring and that humans are causing it.

Example:

A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/09/09/arcti ... -last-year

That is reprinted from a piece in the Daily Mail by David Rose, a well known climate denialist with no special training in climate science. The report is misleading for many reasons, and I won't be too in-depth here; it is covered in a number of other places. The ice sheet did not "grow." Ice sheets change cyclically every year -- when it gets hotter they melt, and when it gets colder they re-freeze and spread. What they're actually comparing is the extent of the summer ice at two times in consecutive years and showing that the sea ice minimum extent is larger this year than it was last year. That is essentially because 2012 was a record-breaking year with very little ice, and it would have been hard (just by pure chance) for this year's minimum to be less than last year's -- or else it would have broken the record again. There's nothing conflicting with the consensus view of global warming here -- in fact, many climate scientists were predicting that this year's minimum would be larger than last year's, despite the general trend over decades towards lower ice.



Incidentally, you mentioned the "BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013." That was not a consensus view among climate scientists; it was the early end of a model from one scientist. The BBC even reported in the very same article comments by other scientists suggesting that the model was a bit too aggressive.

[Phatscotty]

I remember 'learning' in grade school (from a teacher who totally had zero influence on anyone btw) about how the United Kingdom would be a group of tiny islands by the year 2000

edit: another thing that same teacher taught us one day, was about a product that would be coca cola mixed with milk, so that soda would be more healthy

[AndyDufresne]

I remember 'learning' in grade school (from a teacher who totally had zero influence on anyone btw) about how the United Kingdom would be a group of islands by the year 2000

I remember 'learning' from teachers that cursive was the important skill to learn in early childhood.


--Andy

[Phatscotty]

I remember 'learning' in grade school (from a teacher who totally had zero influence on anyone btw) about how the United Kingdom would be a group of islands by the year 2000

I remember 'learning' from teachers that cursive was the important skill to learn in early childhood.


--Andy

At least there aren't any trillion dollar global cursive taxes being proposed

[AndyDufresne]

I remember 'learning' in grade school (from a teacher who totally had zero influence on anyone btw) about how the United Kingdom would be a group of islands by the year 2000

I remember 'learning' from teachers that cursive was the important skill to learn in early childhood.


--Andy

At least there aren't any trillion dollar global cursive taxes being proposed

Source? How do you know there aren't? Pics or its happening.


--Andy

[Phatscotty]

I remember 'learning' in grade school (from a teacher who totally had zero influence on anyone btw) about how the United Kingdom would be a group of islands by the year 2000

I remember 'learning' from teachers that cursive was the important skill to learn in early childhood.


--Andy

At least there aren't any trillion dollar global cursive taxes being proposed

Source? How do you know there aren't? Pics or its happening.


--Andy

Because cursive isn't important!

♥INTERNETZ FOREVER♥

[Metsfanmax]

I remember 'learning' in grade school (from a teacher who totally had zero influence on anyone btw) about how the United Kingdom would be a group of islands by the year 2000

Buddy, I've got news for you... the United Kingdom has been a group of islands for a long time.