An Inconvenient Truth

[sophia jane]

Thanks to Des and RA for answering me. I agree with you both, in part, but it really makes me sad. Not all people who are concerned about the environment are tree huggers, and it seems really short-sighted to me for religious groups to dismiss something out of hand just because it's linked with a group they don't like or disagree with. But then, I feel pretty strongly that there need be no conflict between science and religion (but that's a whole other topic!).

Anyway, I finally saw An Inconvenient Truth last night and I gotta say, he makes a compelling argument. He explains global warming, offers some of the scientific "proof", and explains some of the reasons people are resistant to believe it. He does not get super preachy about how to fix it. I'm not saying I take Gore as the ultimate authority, but I do think he has some good things to say.)
(and Roxanne- yes you and Pure do sound like an old married couple. You're also both waaaay smarter than me, I think. I can't always follow you! )

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Thanks to Des and RA for answering me. I agree with you both, in part, but it really makes me sad. Not all people who are concerned about the environment are tree huggers, and it seems really short-sighted to me for religious groups to dismiss something out of hand just because it's linked with a group they don't like or disagree with. But then, I feel pretty strongly that there need be no conflict between science and religion (but that's a whole other topic!).

Anyway, I finally saw An Inconvenient Truth last night and I gotta say, he makes a compelling argument. He explains global warming, offers some of the scientific "proof", and explains some of the reasons people are resistant to believe it. He does not get super preachy about how to fix it. I'm not saying I take Gore as the ultimate authority, but I do think he has some good things to say.)
(and Roxanne- yes you and Pure do sound like an old married couple. You're also both waaaay smarter than me, I think. I can't always follow you! )

Thanks, SJ. I'm glad you haven't gone ga-ga for Gore; before coming to any conclusions check out this post, http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=21627233&postcount=32, and two other articles I posted right after it.

I'm not smarter than you. I've had some training in economics, though, and occassionally I throw in some of the fancy terms I learned to make me look really smart.

BTW, as you know there are all kinds of Christians. I would say the Christian mainstream certainly believes in not degrading the environment. They call it good stewardship. But that's very different from placing it at the center of the universe, above man and even above God. Or making a god of the environment itself - paganism.

 

[Pure]

comments,

RA Actually, SJ, there is some of what S-Des said, but there's something deeper too, which is an understanding by Christian thinkers that many on the left, especially the enviro left, have created a new paganism. They have made a god of "the Earth," and "Gaia," and all that. There is a genuine and important philosophical difference in the Christian and radical enviro view of man's relationship to nature. The new enviro pagans view man as just another animal, with no priviliged position - "a boy is a frog is a tree." Christians, of course, believe that man is made in the image of God.

I'm not a Christian, but I am a believer in "human exceptionalism." Humans are different, by virtue of having free will and reason. Part of the philosophical disagreement is about the reality of the first and the meaningfulness of the second. (On free will, a philosopher I know put it like this: "A plant in the way of a car will get run over. An animal will jump out of the way. A human will do whatever she chooses - that's free will." )

P: I think Roxanne is mostly right about the Xtian right; they believe is a special status (formed by God from dust) of humans. they *claim* that wanting to protect the earth is worshipping the earth, based on the fact of a few pagans--out of millions of Xtians-- in the environmental mvt. i don't think Gore, has a secret statue of Gaia in his basement, to whom he burns offerings. Do you?

---
RA I'm not a Christian, but I am a believer in "human exceptionalism." Humans are different, by virtue of having free will and reason. Part of the philosophical disagreement is about the reality of the first and the meaningfulness of the second.

P: As Roxanne says, she's a "believer", like the Xtians. That humans have "free will" is not a scientific claim. NOTE: this is not saying it's false. God protects humans who ask for help is also not a scientific claim. Saying something is NOT a scientific claim means that evidence, as usually considered is NOT considered by the person making the claim.

That humans have "reason", may be a scientific claim, and of course I and Gore and roxanne all agree that humans--normally-- show capabilities of reasoning. Of course my dog does, too. That's where *belief* comes in.

RA (On free will, a philosopher I know put it like this: "A plant in the way of a car will get run over. An animal will jump out of the way. A human will do whatever she chooses - that's free will." )

P: There is no debate that a parsley bush, a rabbit, and a human differ.

The question, avoided by roxanne is "Do the differences shown by humans entitle them to --for no particular reason-- inflict pain or death on animals. I think there's evidence for animal pain, and it matters to me--i.e., ethical decisions ought to look at it.

It's a fairly obvious point of ethics that free will and reason are NOT necessary requirement for ethical consideration: babies, and perhaps the seriously retarded, senile, etc do not have either free will or reason (so far as we can tell, provided some sense is made of the claims.). Yet babies, retarded, and senile cannot be arbitrarily "offed", nor used in medical or drug experiments. You oughtn't to test shampoos by dripping them into babies eyes just because their free will and reason aren't in evidence.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

RA (On free will, a philosopher I know put it like this: "A plant in the way of a car will get run over. An animal will jump out of the way. A human will do whatever she chooses - that's free will." )

P: There is no debate that a parsley bush, a rabbit, and a human differ.

The question, avoided by roxanne is "Do the differences shown by humans entitle them to --for no particular reason-- inflict . . . death on animals.

Why stop at aninals? What gives humans the right to kill the poor defenseless parsley plant, minding its own business, not bothering any of the other plants or creatures. And then, out of the blue, WHAM! along comes big bad human, crushing the life out of the poor thing. Oh, the parslanity.

The issue Pure dodges on the free will example is, in what meaningful way do humans, parsley and rabbits differ? The example elegantly shows that there is a real difference. In general, the burden of proof is on the determinists to show that humans lack free will, because our personal experience gives constant evidence that we do.

 

[Pure]

nope

RA In general, the burden of proof is on the determinists to show that humans lack free will, because our personal experience gives constant evidence that we do.

it's a premise of common sense and science that there are uniformities in how humans respond and act (be it 'spontaneously' or after deliberation). there are causal chains and patterns to be found and used/exploited. 1) for instance, a person giving you diet advice may say 'don't keep cakes and pies in the fridge, and ice cream in the freezer.' why, because we who have 'sweet tooth' tend to eat them. (of course i occasionally say 'no', when i'm exercizing free will and i've already eaten a gallon of ice cream.)

2) i, as a parent, tell my 10-year old 'do not go on the internet without supervision or you will lose your computer.' i explain why. i explain how long the loss will be. one year. i EXPECT, with some confidence, that she won't. my warning causes her NOT to do something. of course if her older cousin comes over and 'talks her into it,' she might. but he too would be assuming causal patterns (that persuasion works). when i punish her, i'm assuming causal patterns as well (i.e., that punishment, where appropriate, etc. deters).

the claim of 'free will'--human actions are outside the causal chains and patterns is NOT a scientific, but a theological or metaphysical claim.

there is NO scientist investigating it: why? because no matter what she found it wouldn't settle the debate.

roxanne is entitled to her theology and/or metaphysics, but should be clear that she's outside the realm of fact. (into the realm of 'belief' 'hunch' 'inkling' 'cosmic stirring' etc.). please note i'm not saying she is wrong. she is no more 'wrong' than someone who says Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. these are statements of belief outside the realm of scientific fact; no scientific evidence is relevant.

 

[Pure]

note to sophia,

a recent tv program showed a number of evangelicals who are 'warming' to environmental issues.

in fact they are NOT so political, NOT a matter of left vs. right.

evangelicals have been sold a bill of goods, by the right; many are NOW realizing that being Xtian may mean being concerned with a number of issues such as the following (i.e., regardless of the right wing position in these matters)

1. environment
2. poverty
3. capital punishment
4. humane incarceration
5. restricting the scope of criminal law (e.g. law about prostitution, gay sex, smoking marijuana, etc.)

 

[Pure]

roxanne askes,

What gives humans the right to kill the poor defenseless parsley plant, minding its own business, not bothering any of the other plants or creatures.

rox, i think you know why we kill parsley plants and not puppies.

in a larger sense, of course, the 'right' of plants [huge groups of them; square miles of them] to live-- for example the Brazilian rain forest-- IS a matter of human ethical concern. living things deserve respect, and the 'higher' ones, increasing respect. seems obvious to most of us.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

roxanne askes,

What gives humans the right to kill the poor defenseless parsley plant, minding its own business, not bothering any of the other plants or creatures.

rox, i think you know why we kill parsley plants and not puppies.

No I don't, Pure. If you reject a human-centered ethics then the distinction between the two is purely arbitrary, just as the distinction between a parsley plant and a rainforest.

If your response is that man is an animal and as such is a part of nature, and in nature the mobile eat the immobile, that won't wash either, because man no longer lives as just another animal in nature. Therefore, until we go back to the caves and resume living as such, by the logic of this philosophy, man does not have the right to eat parsley. But oh, you can't acknowledge that man is more than "just another animal" with some fancy trim added in places, because then you would have to admit that there are fundamental qualitative differences between animals and these are not just matters of degree in terms of number of brain cells or whatever. What are those qualitative differences that make man exceptional? Reason and free will.

Ah, the dilemmas of abandoning reason, and man as the measure of all things.

 

[Pure]

whatever differences make humans special are subject to scientific determination.

"free will" is not a concept of science, anymore than "beloved of God" or "possessed by demons" or "made crazy by pixie dust."

"free will" is not subject to scientific determination.

whatever makes humans special is not a matter of 'free will.'

---
roxanne illustrates the danger of abandoning "factual determinations" in favor of (allegedly) "rational" ones. RA is like the persons who said there could not be a planet beyond Uranus because the Planets, according to reason, must have the number 7.

 

[S-Des]

Thanks to Des and RA for answering me. I agree with you both, in part, but it really makes me sad. Not all people who are concerned about the environment are tree huggers, and it seems really short-sighted to me for religious groups to dismiss something out of hand just because it's linked with a group they don't like or disagree with. But then, I feel pretty strongly that there need be no conflict between science and religion (but that's a whole other topic!).

It is sad, but like anything else it's in the midst of change. As long as people keep talking to each other, things will continue to evolve (pun intended). I am old enough to remember when it was common for religious leaders to deny the existence of the dinosaurs (despite ridiculous amounts of evidence). Religion was often more of a superstition, and anyone questioning any portion of it was threatening the whole thing. Now it has evolved to the point where many have accepted that the people leading aren't exactly infallible (even Catholics have decided in large numbers not to observe everything told to them from Rome). It's slow and often painful, but there is progress.

and Roxanne- yes you and Pure do sound like an old married couple. You're also both waaaay smarter than me, I think. I can't always follow you!

Bleh, both of them are very intelligent and educated, but never defer to someone because they sound smart. My father was a 6th grade dropout (the teacher double promoted him because he told her he would be allowed to dropout when he reached 8th grade ). If you drive in Illiois, you won't be able to go anywhere without driving over a bridge or road that he built. He often had to explain to the architechts why their designs wouldn't work in some way or another (and yes, he could read the blueprints as well as they could). Some of the stupidest people I've dealt with have been educated (and most of them were Engineers ). Some people are good at school, some are not. It doesn't make one group more intelligent than others. Everyone has opinions, and I prefer to listen to ones that are based off experience and an ability to listen to others.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

whatever differences make humans special are subject to scientific determination.

"free will" is not a concept of science, anymore than "beloved of God" or "possessed by demons" or "made crazy by pixie dust."

"free will" is not subject to scientific determination.

whatever makes humans special is not a matter of 'free will.'

---
roxanne illustrates the danger of abandoning "factual determinations" in favor of (allegedly) "rational" ones. RA is like the persons who said there could not be a planet beyond Uranus because the Planets, according to reason, must have the number 7.

Naturally I disagree with those characterizations, but I'll just say here that you've still not demonstrated how eating parsley is any less unethical than eating cute little bunnies or cutting down rain forests under your system, absent a totally arbitrary "because Pure says so!"

To any remaining masochists still lurking around this thread, while it may appear that Pure and I have drifted off into esoteric philisophical issues hopelessly unrelated to the issue of radical enviromentalism, that isn't necessarily so, because these issues are really at the core of differences between the different sides in this debate, even though most of the partisans on either side never think of them.

So, if you believe that reason something real and not just a "social construct," and believe that you have free will, you will be on my side in debate about global warming.



(I insert devil, but that's actually not too far off.)

 

[Pure]

i'm sure that if roxanne points out some research by natural scientists, medical scientists or psychologists--published in their professional journals-- that shows humans have free will, all of us will have an interesting time informing ourselves of the latest evidence.

i'd say the same to someone who proposed that humans had 'original sin.'

---

the answer, of course, is that outside of philosophy and theology, you will not find these topics addressed. as for scientists, the fact that they *divide*--some saying 'there is god,' some saying 'there's no god'; OR 'there is free will' vs. 'there isn't free will' shows you the question is not for science to decide.
---
on the thread topic,
please note that Roxanne has never be able to account for the rational choice of the many SUV owners who do not economize in the way she expects they will in the future--i.e. trade for an economical compact car-- *assuming that their SUV related expenses do present any [new] disadvantage to their overall financial position* as her plan stipulates.
===
as to environmental proposals which vitally supplement the 'carbon tax,' etc. here's one fellow's


here's how one economist (i think) explained the problems with the 'carbon tax' as main method of re forming our use of energy.

May 02, 2006
REJECTING THE GOSPEL
OF THE TOOTH FAIRY
By Gar Lipow

Few pundits can refuse the temptation to hurt you for your own good. �It is time to embrace pain� they will say. �Pain is our friend. From pain comes great and enduring good � or at least a shiny quarter under your pillow tomorrow morning�.

The current version of this, as oil prices head upwards towards $80 dollars per barrel, is the call for gasoline or other carbon taxes to make driving (and other fossil fuel use) more expensive. See any standard environmental economics textbook, or recent tooth-fairy wannabes Brad DeLong, Mark Kleiman, Jacob Weisberg, and Max.


And why not; after all, as I�ve pointed out in previous posts we have sources that are only a bit more expensive than fossil fuels; and efficiency measures substantially cheaper. Raise the prices; make all us energy hogs and gas guzzlers pay attention.

The problem is that neither U.S nor world fossil fuel consumption is primarily a matter of individual choice; people with money and power determined what infrastructure would be built where, what capital investments would be made where. In response to a gas tax most people do not have a choice of driving a great deal less; unlike D.C., most cities don�t have significant rail. Public transit for most people means commuter and city buses � which average fewer passenger miles per gallon than automobiles[1].

Perhaps the U.S. should reverse the suburbanization of the nation? That would make sense in the long run, since cities subsidize suburban sprawl. But population distribution based on suburban homes receiving low interest loans, cheap water, sewers, electric utilities and roads at the expense of cities over the course of more than half a century will not reverse itself quickly. Begin the slow process of reviving cities; but don�t wait for it to complete to get us off of fossil fuels.

In the macro-economic sense, the problem with energy or carbon taxes is that energy has a low long term demand elasticity[2]. (A very large increase in energy prices result in very low decreases in demand.) Note that elasticity for individual fuels tends to be higher � though still weaker than we�d like[3].

Long term inelasticity applies most strongly to energy demand as a whole, because people tend to replace energy sources with other energy sources � even when efficiency increases would deliver the same goods or services less expensively. For example it is not unknown for people to switch from electric to natural gas space heating, without first upgrading attic insulation. Neglecting this not only means they burn more gas, but have to buy a larger, more expensive gas boiler to heat their home.

Thus, efficiency tends to be neglected in favor of more expensive alternatives in response to energy price rises. This is bad news, because carbon neutral energy sources tend � on average � to be more expensive than carbon emitting ones[4]. Without efficiency the percent of GDP devoted to energy will rise; more money spent on energy (which is a means towards what we want, not an end), means less available for everything else. Claims that efficiency improvements in the U.S. won�t result in absolute savings are both irrelevant and wrong [5].

To overcome energy demand inelasticity in response to price increase, the standard economic response is to advocate greater price increases. After all, if you raise the prices high enough consumption will drop. The problem with this is you have to raise prices by a great deal more than you need people to spend to reduce consumption.

Take the case of attic insulation again. In my home state of Washington, the optimum amount of attic insulation is ~R50. With R20 insulation or less upgrading to this will pay itself back in four years or fewer. (In new homes of course the payback is even faster.) However regulations only require R38. Almost every new home built is at the R38 level. Even when existing homes upgrade from R20 or below, they typically choose R38. (That is because insulation contractors know that competitors will quote R38, and don�t want to be the high bidder.) A price rise sufficient to motivate homeowners to demand R50 in new homes, and to let contractors risk bidding higher insulation levels would cost consumers much more than including an R50 insulation requirement in a comprehensive set of efficiency regulation.

In short, contrary to the �command and control� libel about how regulation is always the worst solution, strong efficiency regulations would actually improve home efficiency faster and at a lower cost than carbon taxes on heating fuel. If the CAF� standards had not been stalled early after their passage � with increases in standards, plugging of the SUV and other loopholes, and even basic enforcement all blocked by Congress - fleet efficiency would average 40 MPG today. Most cars would probably already be hybrids � which would have made it comparatively easy to upgrade them to plug-in hybrids, and double their effective mileage.

Similarly public works could play a huge role in increasing energy efficiency. Ultra-light electric trains save even more energy than electric cars. Many people would be happy to either give up cars altogether or use them less � if they had a reasonable alternative that (unlike our current public transit system) did not double travel time[6].

One answer to this might be automated ultra-light system such as Cybertran � far less expensive both to build and run than normal light rail, suited for comparatively low density suburbs because of their low station costs, and 24 hour service availability. And as mentioned in a previous post, heavy rail transports freight at a far lower energy cost than heavy trucks. All these types of public works and more could be brought together in something along the lines of what the Apollo Alliance proposes � but on steroids.

Instead of spending 30 billion a year reducing oil use over the course of ten years, we should spend around 150 billion a year over the course of 30 years completely phasing out fossil fuels. Aside from trains, such spending could finance the full insulation, weather sealing, window improvement, and installation of solar space and water heating equipment in every home in the U.S. It could jump start true mass scale solar cell and electric car manufacture. That is a lot of money; but it is less than a third of our current military budget, and a lot less than various tax giveaways we have made to the very rich from the time Nixon was elected forward. Bill Gates might have to pay a little more in taxes, but if that is what is required for the good of this nation, I�m willing to make that sacrifice.

This does not mean that there is no role for carbon taxes.

The key here is at beginning you want to drive capital investment in efficiency �something green taxes don�t do well. As public transit gets built, and residential, industrial and commercial efficiency improve you can gradually phase in carbon taxes � directing the money into helping to fund renewable improvements. But it is important to do these things in the right order; provide the incentives to use alternatives after you provide the alternatives.

A good way to phase in such taxes, aside from phasing them in slowly as infrastructure improves, is to tax fuels in the appropriate order. Tax coal first, because that is the most carbon intensive source � also the most plentiful, unlikely to see natural spikes the way we do with oil and gas. Tax oil secondly, and natural gas last. (In all cases allow credits for user who remove and sequester the carbon from fossil fuel burning; but don�t allow offset elsewhere � especially from carbon plantations. We don�t really know what net carbon sequestration by plants is after cultivation emissions, and after plant methane releases.)

Note that my object to green taxes as the primary means of change is not distributional justice but effectiveness. Steering green taxes towards subsidizing efficiency and green sources is at minimum distributionally neutral, probably even mildly progressive. Besides, regulation imposed costs have exactly the same distributional problem taxation does. It is simply that regulations and public works funded out of general taxation will impose a lower cost on the economy than green taxes alone will.

Lastly I�ll point out that neither regulation nor green taxes will be fully effective on the national level. If it is expensive for the local steel plant to burn coal, and coal remains cheap in other nations, they will simply move their plant. Companies will import carbon intensive components and keep their own emissions clean. One solution, in violation of the WTO as it tends to currently interpret treaties, would be to tax goods (domestic and imported) based on full life cycle carbon emissions. Note that public works which compete with carbon intensive imports will also violate the WTO. In short the WTO, as it currently exists, is a major obstacle to reducing carbon emissions.

This leads to the politics of global warming and phasing out fossil fuels. As you can see from this far from comprehensive blog post, the scope of what needs to be done politically is enormous. It is too big to be won by the environmental movement, or by a movement led by environmentalists. While I don�t agree with everything in the Death of Environmentalism argument, the key point of this essay was 100% correct. The environmental agenda can only flourish in the context of a larger left victory. The old Green slogan of �Neither right nor left but forward� never did make sense.

 

[Huckleman2000]

...rox, i think you know why we kill parsley plants and not puppies...

I know! I know!
Parsley doesn't bleed all over the plate when you snip off a sprig for a garnish.

 

[R. Richard]

The quoted section from Gar Lipow reveals the problems with left wing thinking. Gar Lipow wants to remake civilization according to some sort of dream of his. Gar Lipow is apparently unhappy with not just what he considers improper use of energy resources but also with the way people live their lives. Gar Lipow wants to end suburbanization and revert to urbanization. Unfortunately, people who vote with their income instead of their emptions have decide differently.

If Gar Lipow wants to reform civilization to conform to his dream, then Gar Lipow should get a job teaching school and form a political party.

 

[Pure]

i think when gasoline is $20/gallon, the suburbs will take care of themselves!

i remembered the architect who was envisioning high density cities (there are probably others) Paolo Soleri.

rr, are you one of those right wing dogmatists that hold that central planning is good in big business but bad for states (provinces) and countries?

 

[R. Richard]

rr, are you one of those right wing dogmatists that hold that central planning is good in big business but bad for states (provinces) and countries?

Pure:
I worked for several large companies. They had central planning [too much central planning for my taste.] Said companies paid me to accept their often crack brained central planning [several of the compamies are no longer in business.] I lived in several cities, counties and states. The governmental operations thought they had central planning, but in most cases what little planning they had was done at the local chieftan level, where some borderline mentally retarded ass hole would 'interpret' the central planning. The governmental operations never paid me anything to accept their central planning.

Let me give you a current example, although not an example from where I live. The City of Los Angeles has a central plan. Los Angeles does not arrest people for violations of immigrations laws, including federal immigration laws. The right to refuse to enforce the law surprisingly exists. However, the right to conspire to refuse to enforce the law does not exist. The government does not seem to care about either the Los Angeles scumbag's refusal to enforce federal law, nor the fact that there is a conspiracy to refuse to enforce federal law. The last time The Man sent me to Los Angeles, I had a bit of interaction with MS13. The members of MS13 were mostly illegal immigrants. The scumbags were more concerned about supposed injuries to illegal immigrants than the fact that heavily armed illegal immigrants are running what amounts to a government within a government. I suspect that this last is due to the fact that the scumbags are too busy pimping for their mothers and underage daughters to actually carry out the central planning of the "city government."

 

[Liar]

rox, i think you know why we kill parsley plants and not puppies.

But why do we kill bunnies and not puppies? That's a more interresting question.

Rabbit stew. Mmm.

Ok, not exactly on topic, but anyways.

 

[CharleyH]

But why do we kill bunnies and not puppies? That's a more interresting question.

Rabbit stew. Mmm.

Ok, not exactly on topic, but anyways.

It depends on the country you are in. I am certain some are wondering why we kill puppies and not bunnies.

Dog Stew ... mmm but true.

(PS what has the topic grown into, Liar? )