Consumption driving environment damage: UN

Jun 06, 2012
Indian commuters walk out of a railway station in Kolkata. Population growth and unsustainable consumption are driving Earth towards "unprecedented" environmental destruction, the UN said in a report ahead of the Rio Summit.

Population growth and unsustainable consumption are driving Earth towards "unprecedented" environmental destruction, the UN said in a report Wednesday ahead of the Rio Summit.

Of 90 key goals to protect the environment, only four have seen good progress, the (UNEP) said in a planetary assessment issued only every five years.

"If current trends continue, if current patterns of production and consumption of natural resources prevail and cannot be reversed and 'decoupled,' then governments will preside over unprecedented levels of damage and degradation," said UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner.

The phonebook-sized report, the fifth edition of the Global Environment Outlook (GEO), was issued ahead of the June 20-22 UN Conference on Sustainable Development -- the 20-year follow-up to the landmark Earth Summit, also in Rio.

Preceded by a series of forums gathering as many as 50,000 policymakers, business executives and activists, the summit aims at plotting a course for green development over the next two decades.

But the report warned of many challenges, painting a tableau of a planet whose resources were being stressed into the red zone.

Since 1950, the world's population has doubled to seven billion and is on course for around 9.3 billion by 2050 and some 10 billion by 2100.

At the same time, use of natural resources has zoomed as emerging countries follow rich economies in a lifestyle that is gluttonous on energy and use of water, habitat and fisheries.

"The scale, spread and rate of change of global drivers are without precedent. Burgeoning populations and growing economies are pushing environmental systems to destabilising limits," said the report.

It analysed 90 objectives for the environment identified by UN members.

A scavenger digs through trash at the Jardim Gramacho landfill in Rio de Janeiro, May 2012. Population growth and unsustainable consumption are driving Earth towards "unprecedented" environmental destruction, the UN said in a report ahead of the Rio Summit.

Only four have seen significant progress: scrapping CFC chemicals that damage Earth's protective ozone layer; removing lead from fuel; increasing access to clean water for the poor; and boosting research to reduce marine pollution.

In 40 goals that UN member states asked to be monitored, there was "some" progress, such as expanding national parks and tackling deforestation.

But there was little or no progress in 24 others, including curbing , depletion and desertification.

For climate change, the last decade was the warmest on record, and in 2010 emissions from fossil fuels were the highest ever.

"Under current models, greenhouse-gas emissions could double over the next 50 years, leading to (a) rise in global temperature of three degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) or more by the end of the century," UNEP said.

"The annual economic damage from climate change is estimated at 1-2 percent of world GDP by 2100 if temperatures increase by 2.5 C (4.5 F)," it warned. The UN's target is 2 C (3.6 F).

However, there have been gains in energy efficiency and "some progress" towards meeting emissions targets under the Kyoto Protocol, UNEP said.

For eight goals, including preservation of the coral reefs, things have deteriorated.

The world fell far short of meeting a Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of significantly reducing destruction of biodiversity by 2010.

"Around 20 percent of vertebrate species are under threat," said UNEP.

"The extinction risk is increasing faster for corals than for any other group of living organisms, with the condition of coral reefs declining by 38 percent since 1980. Rapid contraction is projected by 2050."

Data was insufficient to enable a judgement on the 14 other goals.

The GEO report proposed a panoply of remedial measures for Earth's population to start living within its means, including more efficient use of energy and eco-friendlier resources.

Also important was to redefine human progress so that it goes beyond the simple yardstick of economic growth to included quality of life issues.

The Rio Summit is to assess progress since the 1992 Earth Summit, considered a landmark for creating awareness on climate change and biodiversity.

Among ideas that are being debated for the summit is to set down "Sustainable Development Goals" that would succeed the MDGs when their deadline comes up in 2015.

Explore further: Study shows no lead pollution in oilsands region

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

One in seven suffer malnourishment: UN food agency

May 30, 2012

One in seven people suffer from malnourishment, the head of the UN's food agency said Wednesday in a report released ahead of a summit on sustainable development to be held in Rio de Janeiro June 20-22.

Energy, food security to dominate Rio+20: envoy

Oct 13, 2011

Boosting energy efficiency and renewables and providing food for a future world of eight billion will dominate next year's UN Rio+20 conference, the talks' co-coordinator said on Thursday.

UN panel says retool world economy for sustainability

Jan 30, 2012

The world can no longer afford to ignore the environmental cost of economic growth and must redefine the very concept of national wealth, a UN panel of heads of state and environment ministers said Monday.

UN chief to open ministers level at climate talks

Dec 06, 2011

(AP) -- An international treaty on climate change won't be enough to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures, and countries need to voluntarily make deeper cuts in carbon emissions, the head of the ...

Recommended for you

Study shows no lead pollution in oilsands region

9 hours ago

New research from a world-renowned soil and water expert at the University of Alberta reveals that there's no atmospheric lead pollution in Alberta's oilsands region—a finding that contradicts current scientific ...

User comments : 155

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rubberman
3.8 / 5 (17) Jun 06, 2012
So who'll be the first moron who can't do the simple math behind the claims made by this article to attempt to convince the rest of the Physorg visitors that everything is just fine, or smear the UN in some way?
Sigh
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2012
Nice that someone mentions population. Environmental footprint is closely linked to total consumption, which is consumption per person multiplied by population. Both need to be addressed. It rarely happens, thanks to an equivalent of Godwin's law: as soon as population is mentioned, China's one child policy becomes exhibit A, as if coercive programmes were the only way to reduce population growth. Yet Hans Rosling, in his talk on "No more boring statistics" (http://www.youtub...VzgtD6w) mentions that the most successful programme was Iran's, which he describes as purely voluntary. So why the obsession with coercion that prevents sensible discussion?
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (15) Jun 06, 2012
At the same time, use of natural resources has zoomed as emerging countries follow rich economies in a lifestyle that is gluttonous on energy and use of water, habitat and fisheries.


Of course (!) economically developing countries increase standards of living,.. as this is by all definitions, PROGRESS. It is a natural instinct of man to better his condition, and he will defeat any idealology from preventing him from doing so. The UN naively think they can go against this natural force, as if they could hold back the ocean.

Also important was to redefine human progress so that it goes beyond the simple yardstick of economic growth to included quality of life issues


Here, the mush-headed far left, wish to "redefine" economic growth by excluding 'standards of living',... as if they had the power over reality to conform it within their child-like idealism. In a free, capitalist based society, the measure of economies is intrinsically based on 'standards of living'.
Sigh
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2012
In a free, capitalist based society, the measure of economies is intrinsically based on 'standards of living'.

The measures of an economy I most often come across are either GDP or GDP/person, which are a measures of consumption. Are you saying that consumption equals standard of living? Are you aware that although there is a relationship between income (which is related to consumption) and self-reported well-being, that it is not linear? That it saturates?

Are you by any chance a fiscal conservative, who believes we can't spend more than we earn? If yes, would you refuse to apply the same principle to ecosystem services? Fiscal conservatism is nothing more than the idea of sustainability applied to money, yet a lot of fiscal conservatives apply sustainability only to the medium of exchange for resources, not to the resources themselves. I never understood why.
rubberman
3.5 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2012
That didn't take long...Hi Nou.
The writers of the article are sorry they called your lifestyle gluttonous, but they are right. With our current world population we (the human race) burn through everything the world can produce over the period of a year in a 9 month span. This means that every year, for 3 months we use resources that cannot be replenished, this happens with only half of the worlds population living the "western" lifestyle and it happens about 3 days sooner every year. As I said, it is simple math. It doesn't care about your political views, economic standing or your view on AGW. This is just how it is...but you go ahead and keep on down talking the people with ideas to combat this reality, or buy alot of guns and wait the shit to hit the fan.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (15) Jun 06, 2012
So who'll be the first moron who can't do the simple math behind the claims made by this article to attempt to convince the rest of the Physorg visitors that everything is just fine, or smear the UN in some way?


Looks like your the first one, entirely ignorant of politics and form of gov, to smear opposing argument before it has even occured.

As anyone can verify on their own, the UN has not accomplished anything meaningful to 'control population growth', nor to control the global climate by controlling world economies and human behavior. They are powerless to do so.

Population growth and natural resource use, are natural phenomena and will regulate itself, simply because energy has Value in a free market. No need for social engineering and control of human behavior.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2012
Are you by any chance a fiscal conservative, who believes we can't spend more than we earn? If yes, would you refuse to apply the same principle to ecosystem services? Fiscal conservatism is nothing more than the idea of sustainability applied to money, yet a lot of fiscal conservatives apply sustainability only to the medium of exchange for resources, not to the resources themselves. I never understood why.


Absolutely false, which is why you're not a conservative.

By applying conservative principals to the medium of exchange for resources, they apply it to resources as well, because resources have Value,.. and as resources become depleted, demand grows faster than supply which in turn causes the value to increase, which in turn cause consumption to decrease. In addition, given profit motive, new markets open to compete.

It is a self regulating natural phenomena, and effects population growth as well.
rubberman
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 06, 2012
"As anyone can verify on their own, the UN has not accomplished anything meaningful to 'control population growth'"

"No need for social engineering and control of human behavior"

As I said....MORON!
You made both of these statements in the same post Nou......
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (16) Jun 06, 2012
"The GEO report proposed a panoply of remedial measures for Earth's population to start living within its means, including more efficient use of energy and eco-friendlier resources."

How many socialist govts are 'living within their means'?
A free market economic systems is the MOST efficient way of creating the most efficient use of resources.
The means of communicating this efficiency is call 'price'. But this must a be a price freely determined by market forces and not subsidized by any govt. Even the USSR (eventually) understood this.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (15) Jun 06, 2012
"As anyone can verify on their own, the UN has not accomplished anything meaningful to 'control population growth'"

"No need for social engineering and control of human behavior"

As I said....MORON!
You made both of these statements in the same post Nou......


Yes, so, what is your point? Are these two statements mutually exclusive somehow in your mind?
rubberman
3 / 5 (10) Jun 06, 2012
"The GEO report proposed a panoply of remedial measures for Earth's population to start living within its means, including more efficient use of energy and eco-friendlier resources."

How many socialist govts are 'living within their means'?
A free market economic systems is the MOST efficient way of creating the most efficient use of resources.
The means of communicating this efficiency is call 'price'. But this must a be a price freely determined by market forces and not subsidized by any govt. Even the USSR (eventually) understood this.


So if you can afford a third Jet ski for the kids, go ahead and buy it....if you can't afford food....starve.
Free market at it's best....totally sustainable. Not.
I can't wait to see what the world looks like when 50,000,000 Chinese families can afford a Jetski.....let's hope they run on the water they float in...if they can find water.
elephants_are_soft_and_squishy
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2012
@ryggesogn2: Seriously, how many socialist governments are there these days?

"A free market economic systems is the MOST efficient way of creating the most efficient use of resources."

Ok. Please explain how the free market system is going to prevent over-exploitation and destruction of natural systems, and extinction of species.
Sigh
4 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2012
By applying conservative principals to the medium of exchange for resources, they apply it to resources as well, because resources have Value,.. and as resources become depleted, demand grows faster than supply which in turn causes the value to increase, which in turn cause consumption to decrease.

I keep hearing that. How did market forces prevent the extinction of the great auk and the passenger pigeon?

Have you factored in that as the price of a resource increases, its conspicuous consumption may serve as a status symbol, as seems to be the case for shark fin soup? Also, check Cialdini's book "Influence" for an example where the price of an item that didn't sell was accidentally increased instead of decreased, and then it did sell. Are your theories based on "Homo economicus"?

In addition, given profit motive, new markets open to compete.

Are you assuming any resource can be substituted by another, and will be before it is destroyed?
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (15) Jun 06, 2012
Ok. Please explain how the free market system is going to prevent over-exploitation and destruction of natural systems, and extinction of species.


This was already explained above. Resources will become expensive and use of those resources will decrease on account of this. Alternative tech will become a potential for profit and so will be invested in.

As to "extinction of species", .. this has been going on since life started on this planet.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (15) Jun 06, 2012
In addition, given profit motive, new markets open to compete.

Are you assuming any resource can be substituted by another, and will be before it is destroyed?


Are you assuming that oil/coal will run out at 2:35pm on a Tuesday? It will gradually increase in cost over the course of several generations. In fact, we will never "run out" of oil, it will just remain in the ground as too expensive to extract, as compared to alternatives.

How did market forces prevent the extinction of the great auk and the passenger pigeon?


Who gives a flying fuk!? The extinction of species has been going on since life started on this planet. It's purely a natural phenomena. Man is natural and all his activities on this planet is likewise natural.
rubberman
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 06, 2012
"As anyone can verify on their own, the UN has not accomplished anything meaningful to 'control population growth'"

"No need for social engineering and control of human behavior"

As I said....MORON!
You made both of these statements in the same post Nou......


Yes, so, what is your point? Are these two statements mutually exclusive somehow in your mind?


Well, lets start with the fact that your shredding the UN for not doing something that you go on in the same post to say isn't doable...while at the same time saying it as though it was a solution to the problem, then you say it isn't required...very contradictory....
rubberman
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 06, 2012
"Who gives a flying fuk!? "

You could have just posted this and left. Clearly as long as you are living comfortably it is how you feel about the rest of the world.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (14) Jun 06, 2012
Have you factored in that as the price of a resource increases, its conspicuous consumption may serve as a status symbol, as seems to be the case for shark fin soup?


This is meaningless drivel. What a microcosm of a society does is irrelevent. It is undisputed fact that as cost increases, use decreases generally. Do you think that expensive oil will become a status symbol?
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 06, 2012
"Who gives a flying fuk!? "

You could have just posted this and left. Clearly as long as you are living comfortably it is how you feel about the rest of the world.


What? I don't speak liberal bed wetter language, so I'm not understanding your point here. I'm saying animal species have gone extinct millions of times in the past even before man arrived. It's natural. Sorry, to bring a tear to your eye, I care far more about freedom and non-oppression of the nature of humans than the existence of a specific pigeon and an "auk" whatever that is.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (15) Jun 06, 2012
your shredding the UN for not doing something that you go on in the same post to say isn't doable...while at the same time saying it as though it was a solution to the problem, then you say it isn't required...very contradictory....


You seem to have placed by above posts into a blender.

I'm saying the UN hasn't AS A MATTER OF FACT, accomplished the control of the global climate, nor the control over human behavior, nor the control of economies, to meet its tree-hugger agenda. They haven't even solved, by comparison, extremely simple problems like solving world hunger. I stated this to point out a reality.

Why have they not accomplished any of this? They can't, because to do so requires control over natural behavior of free societies,.. it requires countering the natural instincts of humans in seeking to improve their individual self interest and condition. Humans will fight against such oppression everytime, according to their nature.
Sigh
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2012
Are you assuming that oil/coal will run out at 2:35pm on a Tuesday?

You jump to conclusions. I wasn't even thinking about oil/coal, more about ecosystem services, and the species that provide them. Think pollination and coevolution, for example. Species are not so often exchangeable.

How did market forces prevent the extinction of the great auk and the passenger pigeon?


Who gives a flying fuk!?

You changed from saying markets protect resources to saying it doesn't matter. Does that mean you can't defend your original claim that market forces protect resources?
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2012
if current patterns of production and consumption of natural resources prevail and cannot be reversed and 'decoupled,' then governments will preside over unprecedented levels of damage and degradation


It is invalid to predict future cataclysm based on existing technology. It is also invalid to ignore natural countering forces inherent in free market economies.
Sigh
5 / 5 (3) Jun 06, 2012
Have you factored in that as the price of a resource increases, its conspicuous consumption may serve as a status symbol, as seems to be the case for shark fin soup?

This is meaningless drivel. What a microcosm of a society does is irrelevent.

That's the second time here that when something doesn't fit your argument you dismiss it as irrelevant. That "microcosm" matters if it has enough money to pay for the resource until it is gone. Look up the status of sharks, look up "keystone species" and look up what happens when sharks disappear.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2012
You changed from saying markets protect resources to saying it doesn't matter. Does that mean you can't defend your original claim that market forces protect resources?


No, it means that that particular pigeon species has no intrinsic value.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Jun 06, 2012
How did market forces prevent the extinction of the great auk and the passenger pigeon?

To whom did the passenger pigeon belong?
Market forces are NOT involved with 'the commons'. Before you can sell a product one must own it.
Elephants are (or were) being conserved by locals who where granted ownership rights. But, because of the UN, they are not allowed to harvest and sell ivory from their elephants.
Sigh
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2012
No, it means that that particular pigeon species has no intrinsic value.

What is the basis for that convenient judgement?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 06, 2012
"Why, then, did the birds go extinct? No one knows for sure, but it appears that to survive they needed to nest in vast colonies. Perhaps this permitted them to "swamp" predators with their enormous numbers, so that the relatively few predators in the area of a roost were unable to make a significant dent in the huge breeding colonies."
http://www.stanfo...eon.html
How many other bird species couldn't compete with the p.p. that are now thriving?
Airports now have a problem with geese flying into passenger jets, but they are not allowed to kill them and keep them off the runways.
Why not harvest these troublesome geese and send them to India?
Sigh
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2012
How did market forces prevent the extinction of the great auk and the passenger pigeon?

To whom did the passenger pigeon belong?
Market forces are NOT involved with 'the commons'. Before you can sell a product one must own it.

We had that argument before, and you refused to answer when I asked how you would confer property rights to a resource that doesn't conveniently stay in one place.

Still, you seem to agree with me that where there is no practical way to confer property rights, the market has no solution. I keep trying to tell you that our opinions are not all that different.

You might want to listen to "Forum" of 26th May (http://www.bbc.co.../forum). Humans simply don't behave like Homo economicus.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2012
No, it means that that particular pigeon species has no intrinsic value.

What is the basis for that convenient judgement?


It's a similar convenient judgement to that used by liberals in support of abortion, except I value a potential human life over an existent pigeon life.

Is it not a fact that species have become extinct in the past? If a particular species has value to humans it will not only be protected, but will be breed. Perhaps if we are allowed to eat polar bears, they will exist indefinitely.
Sigh
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2012
It's a similar convenient judgement to that used by liberals in support of abortion

You claimed you weren't conceding the argument on markets protecting resources because this resource had no intrinsic value. Now you say you have no basis for that judgement, except convenience. That means you failed to defend your claim about markets. I don't think you can defend it because it is demonstrably wrong, and you have to keep trying to bait and switch to distract from that failure.

Is it not a fact that species have become extinct in the past?

Another attempt at distraction. You also said extinction is natural. So is ageing, but you might be a tad upset if it happened at 100 to 1000 times the natural rate. It will all be the same in 10 million years, but I am concerned about human lives before that. That's why I care about ecosystem services. You have to claim they don't matter in order to defend your political opinion.
NotParker
1 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2012
Better standard of living = lower birthrate

The UN must really, really hate people.
elephants_are_soft_and_squishy
5 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2012
@rubberman: I agree with you, but yelling "Moron" at people gives them permission to ignore your points and claim that you're being a ****. Please don't give them that excuse.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 06, 2012
It's a similar convenient judgement to that used by liberals in support of abortion


You claimed you weren't conceding the argument on markets protecting resources because this resource had no intrinsic value. Now you say you have no basis for that judgement, except convenience. That means you failed to defend your claim about markets. I don't think you can defend it because it is demonstrably wrong, and you have to keep trying to bait and switch to distract from that failure.


I just wanted to be sarcastic wrt abortion, so I used the word 'convenient'.

It's not the free markets job is to save some obscure species. It can't, unless that species has a value to humans, in which case it will likely be bred and sold.

The reason you are confused in my posiion is because you regard that particular species of pigeon as a resource. They are not.
Sigh
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2012
If a particular species has value to humans it will not only be protected, but will be breed. Perhaps if we are allowed to eat polar bears, they will exist indefinitely.

Please do take this statement to an ecologist you trust. Probably that needs to be someone who shares your political opinion so that you don't suspect political bias in the answer. Your ignorance of biology is profound. Many species are economically important for reasons other than being edible or otherwise marketable. Think pollination, for example, and that bees can't pollinate all plants. As for breeding, many species are valuable for providing an ecosystem service, and breeding in captivity would utterly miss the point. Other species don't breed well in captivity.

If you argue that markets protect resources, and any resource that was not protected had no value, and you know it had no value because the market didn't protect it, then you have a circular argument. That is what you offered me.

Back tomorrow
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (15) Jun 06, 2012
100 to 1000 times the natural rate.

What is the natural rate?
Some species have not disappeared for millions of years. What is their natural rate of extinction?
Life adapts to niches. The more niches a species can adapt to the more robust the species. That is the way nature is and has been since life began.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (14) Jun 06, 2012
Another attempt at distraction. You also said extinction is natural. So is ageing, but you might be a tad upset if it happened at 100 to 1000 times the natural rate. It will all be the same in 10 million years, but I am concerned about human lives before that. That's why I care about ecosystem services. You have to claim they don't matter in order to defend your political opinion.


It's not a distraction, because the point is, that it's pointless to save every species that is threatened with extinction,... as this is natural law in anycase.

I never said "ecosystem services" don't matter,... as I don't even know what such a environmentalist hippy phrase is supposed to mean.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (14) Jun 06, 2012
Your ignorance of biology is profound. Many species are economically important for reasons other than being edible or otherwise marketable. Think pollination, for example, and that bees can't pollinate all plants. As for breeding, many species are valuable for providing an ecosystem service, and breeding in captivity would utterly miss the point. Other species don't breed well in captivity.


I don't know about "profound", but I will admit I don't know alot about biology. What I do know, and as i pointed out already,.. species have become extinct millions of times in the past, and those other species that were conditioned on their existence have had to adapt, obviously because animals still exist now. Humans will do likewise.
rubberman
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 06, 2012
@rubberman: I agree with you, but yelling "Moron" at people gives them permission to ignore your points and claim that you're being a ****. Please don't give them that excuse.


"Moron" is considerably more polite than what I would have liked to use. We are debating with people who refuse to acknowledge the stupidity of continually increasing consumption of finite resources (which have negative enviromental impact to boot) by using the rationel that it will all sort itself out because of the economics of "free market". Add to that a blatent lack of understanding of the difference between man causing species extinction vs. a species going extinct due to natural selection (as in not influenced by man). If your on a plane that is nose diving from 20,000 feet and is going to crash, what do you say to the guy beside you who is happy because he wants to get to the ground faster and tells you not to worry, it will all sort itself out....telling him he's a moron is being polite...
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (14) Jun 06, 2012
If you argue that markets protect resources, and any resource that was not protected had no value, and you know it had no value because the market didn't protect it, then you have a circular argument. That is what you offered me.


Where did I say that "markets protect resources". I think that was your interpretation. In fact I implied for example, that oil will become Depleted, expensive, and left in ground unused,.. not protected. I stated those in reference to AGW

A pigeon is not a "resource". In any case, "Value" by definition in the above context, means marketable value. You are right, there is "biological value", I will concede this.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (14) Jun 06, 2012
blatent lack of understanding of the difference between man causing species extinction vs. a species going extinct due to natural selection (as in not influenced by man)


LOL , do YOU not know the distinction between species becoming extinct because of evolution and those becoming extinct because of environmental forces? Do you think that man is the only force that has ever caused the extinction of a species,.. so that all extinctions prior to man must have been natural selection?

I was NOT refering to natural selection time scales, I was refering to extinction from environmental causes. This is clear given the above context. Did the dinosaurs go extinct on account of natural selection?

It's clear you are more interested in insulting others than a rational discussion.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (14) Jun 06, 2012
If your on a plane that is nose diving from 20,000 feet and is going to crash, what do you say to the guy beside you who is happy because he wants to get to the ground faster and tells you not to worry, it will all sort itself out....telling him he's a moron is being polite...


More proof you would rather hate than understand another's position. What else could have motivated you to concoct such an absurdity.

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 06, 2012
"This list looks at fish that were around in remote, prehistoric times and have survived to our time, "
http://listverse....e-today/
Shelgeyr
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 06, 2012
Population growth and unsustainable consumption are driving Earth towards "unprecedented" environmental destruction...


Fun, unique, and abusive use of the word "unprecedented" there...

This planet has apparently been subject to both world-wide fires and world-wide floods, as well as a few other types of global and near-global catastrophes during its tenure. The UN can go hang with their alarmist claptrap, which is transparently intended to boost their own attempts at grabbing and consolidating power.

"Follow the money."

Shelgeyr
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 06, 2012
So who'll be the first moron who can't (snip) or smear the UN in some way?


Translation: "Hi! I'm rubberman, and I agree with this article, so anyone who disagrees with me is a moron!"

You know what kind of person starts a thread with an attitude like that? A mor- oh what's the use...

(I buy ya books and buy ya books, and all you do is eat the covers!)
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 06, 2012
Perhaps if we are allowed to eat polar bears, they will exist indefinitely.


Approximately 1,000 polar bears are legally shot each year. The money earned bringing in rich hunters to Nunavut is significant.

There is no proof of even 1 polar bear dying because of environmental changes, yet environmentalists would rather tell lies about climate change than make the Eskimos mad at them by telling the truth.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 06, 2012
Polar bears are cute, but baby harp seals are even cuter. I always wanted a baby harp seal.
Sigh
5 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2012
What is the natural rate?

The one in between mass extinctions.

Some species have not disappeared for millions of years. What is their natural rate of extinction?

There is no such thing as the extinction rate for one individual species, any more than there is a death rate for one individual person. You can measure extinction rates for groups of species, and death rates for groups of people.

Carrying on from our newly discovered agreement, what do you do if you can't define or agree on a coherent set of property rights, meaning you don't have a market solution? Do you find another solution, or is adherence to the market a sacred value that must never be abandoned? (Just in case, "sacred value" is a technical, not a derogatory term.)
Sigh
5 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2012
I never said "ecosystem services" don't matter,... as I don't even know what such a environmentalist hippy phrase is supposed to mean.

That explains a lot. Perhaps this will motivate you to look it up: Your statement is roughly equivalent to someone entering a discussion on economics and saying, in all seriousness
I never said "money" doesn't matter,... as I don't even know what such a capitalist bankster phrase is supposed to mean.

That means you are not in a good position to discuss the economic value of a species.

You also seem to assume that the economic value should be the price someone is willing to pay for a resource. Why not the price someone is willing to accept? In economics, your maximum buying price and your minimum selling price are supposed to be the same; there is supposed to be one indifference point where you are equally happy with the money or the item. In practice, that is not true. What is the point of economic models not based on reality?
Sigh
5 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2012
What I do know, and as i pointed out already,.. species have become extinct millions of times in the past, and those other species that were conditioned on their existence have had to adapt

Except that often they didn't.
obviously because animals still exist now.

That doesn't mean they are the same animals that depended on a species that went extinct.
Humans will do likewise.

History offers no guarantee of that. Also, when you mentioned abortion you implied a concern about individuals, not just the continued existence of the species. Think about what ecosystems can provide as income. The environmentalist's concern is that we, as a species, are spending capital. That will reduce income, and people will suffer.

The advocates of economic austerity promise the pain now is needed to avoid greater pain later. Environmentalists have exactly the same message, for the same reasons. You would expect fiscal and resource conservatism to be positively correlated.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 07, 2012
I never said "ecosystem services" don't matter,... as I don't even know what such a environmentalist hippy phrase is supposed to mean..

That explains a lot.,...
That means you are not in a good position to discuss the economic value of a species.


What it explains is that I've neer heard of that dippy phrase before, that is all. Not surprisingly, and as I suspected, it appears that the UN invented the phrase and promoted the notion, even though everyone already understands that environment is important for humans.

"While scientists and environmentalists have discussed ecosystem services for decades, these services were popularized and their definitions formalized by the United Nations 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA)" - wiki
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 07, 2012
The advocates of economic austerity promise the pain now is needed to avoid greater pain later. Environmentalists have exactly the same message, for the same reasons. You would expect fiscal and resource conservatism to be positively correlated.


Actually, you seem to have no clue about what the far left "progressives" want. This issue is not about reducing carbon emissions or protecting the environment. This can be done rationally within the existing economic framework.

The far left socialists are propagandizing these environmental issues as immeniently cataclysmic, in order to fundamentally change the economic foundations and forms of government across the globe.

The UN and the far leftist progressives are clearly anti-capitalist and anti-freedom, and desire social engineering, redistribution of wealth, and control over human behavior,... all at the cost of liberty.

I come on here and attempt to inform you that this will fail,... as should be clear by now.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 07, 2012
,.... in fact I don't reject the notion that kicking up co2 into the air is going to cause some effect, or even that current consumption of resources in current forms is unsustainable.

I reject that climate science has such a handle on it that they can justify predicting immenient cataclysm. I reject the notion that "progressive" socialism, control of human behavior, is the answer.

Even if I bought into this exaggerated bs, I would arrive at the same conclusion,... that as we are witnessing now, ....NOTHING IS BEING DONE ABOUT IT. The UN is powerless in controlling human behavior, they are powerless in acquiring control over free market capitalism.

The green "industry" has gone nowhere, despite billions being handed over to it by governments. Where are all the windmills and solar panels? The free market decides what will work and what will not work, not incompetent government.

If we can't "save ourselves" with human dignity and freedom intact, then we will go down with the ship.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 07, 2012
,.. Even Al Gore desires to live lavishly and live in a huge mansion despite being only one person. It's not his fault, it's his nature as living thing.

The unsustainability in use of resources is by definition also unsustainably within a purely capitalistic system. This means that such use will self regulate within existing economic systems. It is more natural that issues facing humanity be resolved naturally as economic systems evolve is response to such forces.

Government control is NOT the answer, as this is counter to natural forces, and is reactionary to speculative predictions, while free economies react to real forces. Government has proven itself incompetent over and over, fiscally as well as in agreeing to UN protocals. Massive deaths were the result of socialistic control over the masses.
wiyosaya
2 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2012
Of course (!) economically developing countries increase standards of living,.. as this is by all definitions, PROGRESS. It is a natural instinct of man to better his condition, and he will defeat any idealology from preventing him from doing so. The UN naively think they can go against this natural force, as if they could hold back the ocean.

You call this progress? Some people are just totally clueless I guess. Please compete for the next Darwin Award.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 07, 2012
Of course (!) economically developing countries increase standards of living,.. as this is by all definitions, PROGRESS. It is a natural instinct of man to better his condition, and he will defeat any idealology from preventing him from doing so. The UN naively think they can go against this natural force, as if they could hold back the ocean.

You call this progress? Some people are just totally clueless I guess. Please compete for the next Darwin Award.


Your point is obscured in your ad hominem attack.

"The free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history" - Barach Obama

And everyone knows that economic progress means increased standards of living, which in turn means increased life expectancy,.. except the clueless ones.

The most efficient way of solving issues confronting humanity, is through freedom of choice, liberty, and capitalism as these are natural forces. The UN goes against these forces in vain.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 07, 2012
The advocates of economic austerity promise the pain now is needed to avoid greater pain later.

The economic austerity you refer to is the limiting the size and scope of the state on the economy. Imagine a dog covered in blood sucking ticks. The 'austerity' you refer to is killing as many parasites as possible enabling the host to become more healthy.
The pain is really felt by the parasites, not the hosts being drained.
rubberman
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 07, 2012
NOU- "It's clear you are more interested in insulting others than a rational discussion."

NOU-"What it explains is that I've neer heard of that dippy phrase before, that is all."

NOU-"This is meaningless drivel."

NOU-"I never said "ecosystem services" don't matter,... as I don't even know what such a environmentalist hippy phrase is supposed to mean"

NOU-"Here, the mush-headed far left, wish to "redefine" economic growth by excluding 'standards of living'"

NOU-"What? I don't speak liberal bed wetter language, so I'm not understanding your point here."

Think about what you are posting. And thanks for validating my first post with everything you have said since. The authors of the report suggest to "live within our means"...not alot to ask unless the people being asked feel they are entitled to more than that which you clearly do. Take your "who gives a flying fuk?!" outlook on the rest of the world to Oklahoma and start up a farm.
You might wanna make it a solar farm
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 07, 2012
The authors of the report suggest to "live within our means"...not alot to ask unless the people being asked feel they are entitled to more than that which you clearly do.


Do you honestly believe that "asking" or "suggesting" people adjust their personal standard of living in reaction to hysterical speculation, is going to change anything,... when not even AL GORE himself is willing to live as the average human does on this planet?!!!

You can't possibly be so naive to think that asking humanity nicely to live like a caveman is going to work.

In fact the UN are NOT just "asking" or "suggesting",.. they wish to fundamentally change the form of governments to socialism. They've admitted to wanting mass redistribution of wealth. It's not just about AGW and the depletion of natural resources,... it's about "global income inequality" and control and regulation of human behavior.

People like you are perfect to spoon feed this constant stream of environmental study propaganda.
rubberman
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2012
Just because you call it "Hysterical speculation" doesn't change the fact that it is actually a scientifically calculated fact.

They (the UN) aren't suggesting we live like cavemen. They are suggesting there is tremendous disparity between a highly polluting society where people can own a 40 million dollar yacht, or get paid 8 figures to play a sport because the rest of the society has 2 tv's to watch it on, and a society where families are using machetti's to fight each other for firewood to cook dinner with.

People like you have no clue what the lives of the majority of earths inhabitants are truly like. You have no ability to view the world from a truly global perspective when it comes to resource availabilty because you live in a place where there is currently an abundance. A society who's fundamental basis is to consume and provide anything possible for consumption. All the fields of science are trying to tell you supplies are dwindling. Calculated, checked and verified.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 07, 2012

They (the UN) aren't suggesting we live like cavemen. They are suggesting there is tremendous disparity between a highly polluting society where people can own a 40 million dollar yacht, or get paid 8 figures to play a sport because the rest of the society has 2 tv's to watch it on, and a society where families are using machetti's to fight each other for firewood to cook dinner with.


It is called envy.

Socialists envy the rich and try to drag everyone down to their level (while secretly stealing as much as possible),

Capitalism offers you the opportunity to work your way up to being rich.

Envy is an ugly emotion to run a government on.
rubberman
4 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2012
Scientists don't publish pier reviewed "propaganda". The end result of scientific study isn't "propaganda", it is just information that was obtained by someone alot smarter than you and I working to solve a problem that you and I and our parents and their parents helped to create. Just because you choose to not believe what they are saying and label it as propaganda doen't change the fact that it is true. You don't want to live like a caveman because you are used to having luxuries that over time have been "redefined" as necessities. Whether you like it or not we are being told that for a great many people who think this way, a decreased standard of living from what you have become accustomed to is inevitable. Again, not hysterical speculation or propaganda...just information. Ignoring it and dismissing it just means it's going to hurt more when it happens.
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2012
I would simply like to point out that resource consumption and climate change are far from our greatest worries.

I would worry more about human rights, religious conflicts, disease epidemics, economic collapse, terrorism and war. I'm sure other things could be added to that list as well, but that should be enough.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 07, 2012
Scientists don't publish pier reviewed "propaganda".


They do. They are like parasites who need grant money to thrive. When they are desperate for fame or money or ideologically motivated they will write papers where the results are decided upon before they collect data. They then cherry pick data and leave out data that doesn't match the planned results.

Here is a good example of discarding proxies, using some upside down. And just plain misleading people. And if the peer reviewers have the same ideological bent the paper gets published.

http://climateaud...ficance/

Remote Sensing's Editor in Chief was forced to resign because he accidentally let a skeptical paper through.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 07, 2012
I would simply like to point out that resource consumption and climate change are far from our greatest worries.

I would worry more about human rights, religious conflicts, disease epidemics, economic collapse, terrorism and war. I'm sure other things could be added to that list as well, but that should be enough.


And those problems are several orders of magnitude simpler than controlling the climate and human behavior, and yet they haven't been solved.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 07, 2012
@rubberman
What I'm calling propaganda is not the fundamental science of climate change, just the wild speculation of cataclysm, and the constant baragge of "study" after "study" implying doom is immenient.

They are suggesting there is tremendous disparity between a highly polluting society where people can own a 40 million dollar yacht, ... and a society where families are using machetti's to fight each other for firewood to cook dinner with.


Exactly, they wish to impose redistribution of wealth for 'income equality'. To do this requires implementation of socialism or even communism, and rejection of individual freedom.

Again, free countries will NOT submit to this. They can't even agree on a simple Kyoto protocol, and you expect them to change to socialism or communism and hand over their wealth?

Not only is it fair that more successful societies have more wealth, it is purely natural occurance, and is just in every sensible way.
Shelgeyr
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2012
...scientifically calculated fact...


Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Nice oxymoronic phrase you assembled there! I'll have to remember to use it sometime!

All the fields of science are trying to tell you supplies are dwindling.


Hahahahaha! Stop it! Let me catch my breath, PLEASE!!!

Oh, and also: http://www.forbes...ale-oil/

Scientists don't publish pier reviewed "propaganda".


(long, sustained howl of hysterical laughter)
(wipes tears of hiliarity out of eyes)

Oh MAN that was a good one! Are you working on a killer comedy routine or what?

You've got a GREAT act in the works here! You just need to flesh it out a bit, you know, add in something thunderously pontificating about glaciers or bees. Or weasels! Don't forget that weasels are ALWAYS funny!

Also, if you're fishing, and accidently drop your catch on the deck, does that count as "submitting it to pier review"?
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 07, 2012
,... as its in line with the natural mechanism of survival of the fittest, and motivates societies to generate wealth to begin with. Competition is absolutely vital for humanities survival. In fact as even Obama admitted, the greatest force for economic progress is the free market, which fundamentally requires profit motive and competition, and survival of the fittest.

Also, the notion that there is only X amount of wealth possible is faulty logic. Other countries can and will compete to develope. Once they do, they will use more energy, say oil, which will cause the price to go up,... then and only then, will alternatives be developed, because there will be profit potential in competing with the more expensive oil. This is how innovation works.

Do you see any country submitting control over energy use and their economies to the UN? Does Al Gore live in a mansion that uses twenty times more energy? Then understand this simple fact; nothing is being done to defeat capitalism.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.9 / 5 (14) Jun 07, 2012
http://www.breitb...ys-Kurtz

http://www.therig...w-party/

For those who believe President Barack H. Obama to be steeped only in Democrat Party values, here are 2 links that prove the President is not who he says he is. In my opinion, President Obama is the personification of the "Manchurian Candidate" and is very much a Socialist. He can't be a Communist because that's a whole different animal. Socialism is far worse. It's a nation destroyer. If you don't believe me, then vote for Obama and you'll experience the decline of the USA as a world power if he's reelected.
PussyCat_Eyes
2.1 / 5 (15) Jun 07, 2012
If you're wondering what Obama's affiliation with Socialism has to do with global warming - it has everything to do with it. Obama won't allow the Keystone XL, so China will get the oil from Canada. The biggest 3 users of fossil fuels are Russia, China and India - other than Europe and the USA. Russia is gearing up to selling their enormous gas supply to China. and China will use the money that they receive in payment from the USA to pay Russia for their gas. Russia, China and India are NOT going to stop their emissions, no matter what. They are not concerned about what the rest of the world thinks. They'll just do their own thing and the rest of the world can go to hell.

http://www.reuter...20120604

The USA might comply with pollution control, etc. but those other 3 countries probably won't. So nothing will change. If AGW folks want real change, take it up with Russia, China and India and see what they tell you.
Sigh
5 / 5 (1) Jun 08, 2012
The far left socialists are propagandizing these environmental issues as immeniently cataclysmic, in order to fundamentally change the economic foundations and forms of government across the globe.

Not true for anyone I ever met, probably true for a minority. But any attempted conspiracy could be subverted by agreeing there is a crisis, and offering a better market-based solution.

Much of the push for regulation comes from the free market advocates' refusal to offer more than "the market will provide", coupled with a denial that there is a problem. ryggesogn2 told me that the market will provide, and gave me some examples where it does, but whenever I ask about a more difficult class of problems, he ignores me. But he still either claims that the market will provide, or denies that there is a problem. We went through a similar cycle.

How can an environmentalist work with free market advocates to develop market-based solutions, if they just deny there is a problem?
Sigh
5 / 5 (1) Jun 08, 2012
The economic austerity you refer to is the limiting the size and scope of the state on the economy. Imagine a dog covered in blood sucking ticks. The 'austerity' you refer to is killing as many parasites as possible enabling the host to become more healthy.
The pain is really felt by the parasites, not the hosts being drained.

The pain I was thinking of is people losing their jobs. Are those people all parasites?
Noumenon
1 / 5 (7) Jun 08, 2012
Much of the push for regulation comes from the free market advocates' refusal to offer more than "the market will provide", coupled with a denial that there is a problem.


No that is again false, ...it is denial that there is an Imminent problem. Also, there is a difference between rational regulations compatible with existing economic systems, and social engineering.

Free market advocates offer solutions by advocating free market capitalism. This is to say, we must evolve solutions in accordance with existing economic forces, ....as the free market responds naturally to forces of supply and demand of natural resources. We advocate that this is the most efficient way, in fact the only way while maintaining freedom of individuals.

If you were truly concerned about the AGW and depletion of natural resources, why would you continue to support a mentality that has obviously failed,.. there isn't even a basic agreement on a protocol for a solution. That mentality is rejected....
rubberman
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2012
Nou, the ONLY thing I disagree with in your last 2 posts was this-

"Not only is it fair that more successful societies have more wealth, it is purely natural occurance, and is just in every sensible way."
As this is a whole new debate I'll leave it alone.

Wealth and economic prosperity whether it be personal or national are illusions created by life on a planet where we have made money equivalent to material. Everything has a price....for now.
At the current rates of consumption our dwindling natural resources will become the new currency. If the only nation that produces rare earth elements can no longer produce enough to meet it's own needs, do you think they will still export any? How will the US obtain everything it consumes but doesn't produce? (invade Canada likely). China...same boat. (invade russia).

Shelley...you think that stuff was funny, you should here my material on bath salt buffets and walmart patrons...pure gold

ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 08, 2012
If consumption is so bad, then the 'progressives' in the USA should be embracing the FAIR tax after first repealing the income tax.
The FAIR tax is national consumption tax and would replace the income tax.
But of course the 'progressives' wouldn't think this if really fair. After all, earning income and investing must be punished, not rewarded.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (8) Jun 08, 2012
The far left progressive mentality is well documented and is not a matter of imagined conspiracy. Mayor Bloomberg recently banned large sodas in NY,.... he is an example of this mentality. Because he perceives a "problem" in society of obesity, he uses the power of the government to force people to behave differently.

The far left progressives ( UN obviously sympathizes with) will employ statisticians to conduct "studies" of every perceived defect of society, and through social engineering and forced control of human behavior, will attempt to "fix" these problems according to their emotional vision of "fairness", ... trampling on freedom every step of the way. This is the basis of the constant barrage of such studies streaming here at physorg and elsewhere.

Income inequalities and resource use inequalities, and other such emotional liberal drivel, are purely natural occurrences, and are simply the accepted cost of maintaing free societies and thereby maintaing dignity of mankind.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 08, 2012

The pain I was thinking of is people losing their jobs. Are those people all parasites?

If they work for the govt, or like Greece, demand the govt force employers to pay for some to retire at age 50.
Or like public employee unions that bribe 'liberal' politicians to keep increasing their state funded retirement for their votes, as was happening in Wisconsin, and all over the US.

"Walker was able to make the case that years of corrupt union-politician back-scratching had been bankrupting the state. "
"Without the thumb of the state tilting the scale by coerced collection, union membership became truly voluntary. Result? Newly freed members rushed for the exits. In less than one year, ­AFSCME, the second-largest public-sector union in Wisconsin, has lost more than 50 percent of its membership."
http://www.washin...ory.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2012
"Most important, however, because in the end reality prevails. As economist Herb Stein once put it: Something that cant go on, wont. These public-sector unions, acting, as FDR had feared, with an inherent conflict of interest regarding their own duties, were devouring the institution they were supposed to serve, rendering state government as economically unsustainable as the collapsing entitlement states of southern Europe."
http://www.washin...ory.html
Noumenon
1 / 5 (7) Jun 08, 2012
,... the far leftists solutions have no chance of working, so why continue to support their mentality? In order to implement their vision, they must not only fix the global climate, the depletion of natural resources and wealth inequalities, they must also accomplish the monumental task of defeating capitalism and freedom to pursue profit according to abilities and circumstance, in order to succeed given their methods. They must fight against the natural instincts of man every step of the way.

This will not work, as can be witnessed yourself. Where are the electric cars, windmills, and solar panels? Where is the global government controlling energy use? Where is the massive redistribution of wealth? Where is the green industry? The natural forces in which the free market and humanity functions, is not ready yet for these technologies,... CO2 based energy is still cheap and available. There is plenty of energy, e = mc^2, & 100 years is a tiny amount of time in climate history.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (7) Jun 08, 2012
At the current rates of consumption our dwindling natural resources will become the new currency.


As I've said multiple times, anything of value is de facto equivalent to currency, so this is already the case in existing capitalistic economies. As supply dwindles, demand increases, and so price increases. People will then pursue cheaper alternatives, because they constantly seek what's best for them as they view reality from a egoistic perspective given their nature. As price goes up, new markets open for alternatives. The profit motive for these alternatives breeds innovation. You can't force solutions while there is no perceived problem to react to.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 08, 2012
The far left socialists are propagandizing these environmental issues as immeniently cataclysmic, in order to fundamentally change the economic foundations and forms of government across the globe.
-And there is something wrong with this? Countries were a temporary construct, meant to replace still smaller political entities.

The Time has come to end sovereign states who only want what is in their own interests. This is wasteful, destabilyzing, and obsolete. A govt of the world is the only way to end nationalism, tribalism, religionism. Humans must be one tribe if we are to survive.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 08, 2012
The far left socialists are propagandizing these environmental issues as immeniently cataclysmic, in order to fundamentally change the economic foundations and forms of government across the globe.
-And there is something wrong with this? Countries were a temporary construct, meant to replace still smaller political entities.

The Time has come to end sovereign states who only want what is in their own interests. This is wasteful, destabilyzing, and obsolete. A govt of the world is the only way to end nationalism, tribalism, religionism. Humans must be one tribe if we are to survive.


Pie in the sky theoretical BS. Even this requires a natural and gradual evolution of societies, not ad-hoc planned out in advance, by Nostradamus.

Yes, I would like everyone to be one people and get along too, and every five year child would as well.

Being an adult means being intellectually responsible and proposing solutions that are actually possible.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 08, 2012
A govt of the world is the only way to end nationalism, tribalism, religionism.

How?
Every large nation-state has not succeeded in homogenizing humans.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 08, 2012
The Time has come to end sovereign states who only want what is in their own interests.


You're not making any sense. If the time has come and they are obsolete then a one world government world naturally evolve into existence. Also, if individual sovereign states are only concerned about their own interests (as they should be btw), who and what force is going to submit them to a one world government?

I could go further pointing out your ill logic,.. for example the differences in region and history of people require custum governance,... aka separate countries.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2012
Pie in the sky theoretical BS. Even this requires a natural and gradual evolution of societies, not ad-hoc planned out in advance, by Nostradamus.
Nothing natural about history AT ALL. Humanity has survived despite itself. I smell Planning and Design of the Highest Order. And we all know that Providence does not exist. Only mature and sober People with vision and an enduring commitment.
If the time has come and they are obsolete then a one world government world naturally evolve into existence.
That sounds suspiciously religionist. You do know your philosophical penchant is fatally grounded in superstition dont you?

Humanity is not some self-regulating Gaia. Humanity is fully capable of ruining itself by soiling its nest, and has been so for a very, very long time.

Nothing preventing us from going extinct but the desire to survive, by any and all Means. The people are the Enemy, dont you know that? Of course not.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2012
individual sovereign states are only concerned about their own interests (as they should be btw)
Greece was only concerned about its own self-interest (ostensibly) and is now on the verge of chaos. Iran is only concerned with creating the weapons it needs to destroy israel. Nazi germany was only concerned with conquering all of europe and destroying soviet russia.

The world can no longer stand for national sovereignty. But the end of it cannot happen by itself. The US civil war was fought to end similar conditions here.

Old cultures do not die by themselves. They need to be destroyed, one way or another.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2012
Unless of course you are trading on the Stock Market.

"Before you can sell a product one must own it." - RyggTard

"But, because of the UN, they are not allowed to harvest and sell ivory from their elephants." - RyggTard

The Ivory Trade was essentially abolished by U.N. agreement back in the 80's. But Libertarians insisted that limited trade in Ivory be permitted to assist the elephants. And now the Ivory trade is back in full swing to the detriment of the elephants.

Wherever it is tried. Libertarian economics turns out to be an abysmal failure.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2012
The U.S. banking crisis has seen it's contamination spread all over the globe.

"If the time has come and they are obsolete then a one world government world naturally evolve into existence." - NumenTard

Clearly the world is already one highly interconnected nation state.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2012
You are clearly domesticated enough for use as slave labor by your corporate masters.

"Every large nation-state has not succeeded in homogenizing humans." - RyggTard

Is more "homoginization" needed?

Sigh
5 / 5 (1) Jun 09, 2012
No that is again false, ...it is denial that there is an Imminent problem.

Right in this thread, look at Shelgeyr and NotParker. Do they say "we have time to deal with the problem" or do they say "there is not problem"? What is the Tea Party position, or that of Republican candidates?

Free market advocates offer solutions by advocating free market capitalism.

Be concrete. Assume that the scientists are right and warming is an imminent problem because it takes so long to implement solutions and the more time to turn the system around. What is the market response? What is the market's time horizon? How does it deal with a problem that needs fixing decades before economic costs become acute?

If you were truly concerned about the AGW and depletion of natural resources, why would you continue to support a mentality that has obviously failed,..

Why do you think I ask for specifics of a market-based solution, instead of hand waving?
Sigh
5 / 5 (2) Jun 09, 2012
No that is again false, ...it is denial that there is an Imminent problem.

Right in this thread, look at Shelgeyr and NotParker. Do they say "we have time to deal with the problem" or do they say "there is not problem"? What is the Tea Party position, or that of Republican candidates?

Free market advocates offer solutions by advocating free market capitalism.

Be concrete. Assume that the scientists are right and warming is an imminent problem because it takes so long to implement solutions and the more time to turn the system around. What is the market response? What is the market's time horizon? How does it deal with a problem that needs fixing decades before economic costs become acute?

If you were truly concerned about the AGW and depletion of natural resources, why would you continue to support a mentality that has obviously failed,..

Why do you think I ask for specifics of a market-based solution, instead of hand waving?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (10) Jun 09, 2012
specifics of a market-based solution,

Specifics like market based solutions have been demonstrated to WORK, to be effective, while centrally planned socialist solutions have demonstrably FAILED?
NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2012
No that is again false, ...it is denial that there is an Imminent problem.

Right in this thread, look at Shelgeyr and NotParker. Do they say "we have time to deal with the problem" or do they say "there is not problem"?


I don't think the UK getting more sunshine is a problem that can be solved.

http://sunshineho...us-tmax/

More sun, higher temperatures.

Why are we getting more bright sunshine?

Some Dutch scientists think cleaner air.

http://sunshineho...erlands/

It is true that Europe is burning more coal, so that may cool off the planet some.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2012
"The city fathers of Detroit inherited one of the richest and most productive cities in the world, and they ruined it in a generation. The gentlemen in Washington have been entrusted with the richest and most productive nation in the history of the world, and the trendline does not look good."
http://www.nation...l-story#
This is exactly what the UN wants.
Why do so many here want this?
Sigh
5 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2012
specifics of a market-based solution,

Specifics like market based solutions have been demonstrated to WORK

Hand waving again, without specifics. You yourself said, in this thread:
Market forces are NOT involved with 'the commons'. Before you can sell a product one must own it.

And you always shut up when I ask you about cases where property rights become difficult to define.

while centrally planned socialist solutions have demonstrably FAILED?

Like the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer? What would have been your market based solution for that?

If consumption is so bad, then the 'progressives' in the USA should be embracing the FAIR tax after first repealing the income tax.
The FAIR tax is national consumption tax and would replace the income tax.

Is that the tax Robert H Frank described in "Luxury Fever"? Sounded like a good idea to me. Your notion of what progressives want is far too simplistic.
Sigh
5 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2012
Income inequalities and resource use inequalities, and other such emotional liberal drivel, are purely natural occurrences

Ha-Joon Chang, in his book "23 things they don't tell you about capitalism", points out that a bus driver in Oslo earns about 50 times as much as a bus driver on Delhi. That is not because the Oslo bus driver is 50 times more productive, but because immigration controls reduce the supply of labour. You can't have a free market without the free movement of labour. At least some of the inequalities you see as natural are the consequence of government regulation of immigration.

As I understand the issue, commitment to a truly free market is incompatible with immigration control, and without such controls, nation states might well disappear. What would be their point? Oddly enough, free market advocates more often seem to be in favour of nation states and immigration controls. Why is that? And what is your position?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2012
Specifics like market based solutions have been demonstrated to WORK, to be effective
Yes, wildly effective, as they always are at the beginning of an economic cycle. And they have been artificially stoked for a century or so in order to generate the incredible technological achievements we have seen. They were USED for exactly this Purpose. These achievements could not have been produced WITHOUT the rampant consumption and Thruput forced upon us by superheated capitalism.

But, per the article, this is unsustainable. It is ruinous. The world needs to achieve a steady state and capitalism cannot survive in such an environment.

Hey - plenty of potential new markets in space. Why not emigrate? Perhaps earth will become the bedroom community of the inner system. And comfortably, pleasantly socialist. Prosperity and rider mowers for everybody. Aw these will be robots by then.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2012
You were asked for a specific solution and respond with a meaningless generality.

"Specifics like market based solutions have been demonstrated to WORK" - RyggTard

Enron was a fine example of a market based solution.

Everywhere it is tried, Libertarian economics is a complete failure.

Libertarian economics set America on a path to economic oblivion during the Reagan Era and it's borrow and spend insanity.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2012
Correct. And if you real the Libertarian party platform they are against all manner of immigration control.

"You can't have a free market without the free movement of labour." - Sigh

From the platform.

We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.

cont...
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2012
We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new "Berlin Wall" which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government's policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.

Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference.

Cont...
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2012
We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.

From the Libertarian party Platform.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2012
The Libertarian party platform contains all manner of interesting things, like the support for the legalization of child prostitution and the decriminalization of child molestation.

If the child is willing, then it can't be a crime under Libertarian law.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (8) Jun 10, 2012

Assume that the scientists are right and warming is an imminent problem [....] What is the market response? What is the market's time horizon? How does it deal with a problem that needs fixing decades before economic costs become acute?


Your questions are loaded with unfounded speculative assumptions, yet you yourself refuse to consider the issue within the framework of existing undisputed realities, that a) existing economies are free market based, and b) socialism is generally rejected in the west.

I use the term "evolve" in my statement that 'we have to evolve off of co2 based energy', to imply that, it is not known in advance how this will actually come about. In general, we do not know how technology and civilization will advance in 100 years.

I suspect that global temp will rise a few degrees over the next century, but technology will increase even quicker, and mankind will still demand freedom as they've always have.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2012
As I understand the issue, commitment to a truly free market is incompatible with immigration control, and without such controls, nation states might well disappear. What would be their point? Oddly enough, free market advocates more often seem to be in favour of nation states and immigration controls. Why is that? And what is your position?


Well, obviously nations evolved into being according to particular historical influences, political philosophy, and regional realities. Nation states are entirely justified entities and have the right to protect their identity and citizens, hence immigration laws for example.

Nations generally already have trade and labour agreements with it's neighbors. Each country has a currency and standard of living, of a value that is a measure of it's productivity in the global market.

There are many factors that determine 'income inequalities' within free nations and across borders,... but what is certain is that they are existent realities.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2012
The Libertarian party platform contains all manner of interesting things, like the support for the legalization of child prostitution and the decriminalization of child molestation.

If the child is willing, then it can't be a crime under Libertarian law.


Riiiight, and far left liberals like to eat live puppies.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012
98 percent of the worlds scientists disagree with you.

"Your questions are loaded with unfounded speculative assumptions" - NumenTard

Your answer - even though you didn't intend it - actually provides the answer to the question that was asked of you...

That question... "What is the market response?"

Your answer. There is no market response to a problem that 98 percent of scientists have identified as serious to the point of mass extinction.

You are wrong though. There has been a market response. That response is to fund a campaign of denial in an effort to make the science go away.

That is not only market failure, but a spectacular form of market corruption.

Regulation is clearly required.

Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012
Under Libertarian doctrine, prostitution is legal, sacred, commerce.

Under Libertarian doctrine, a child can at any time assert their adulthood.

Therfore under Libertarian doctrine, a child can at any time assert their right to engage in prostitution.

Further, under Libertarian doctrine, a child can at any time decide to engage as an adult in any sexual activity they wish.

Hence if the child is willing, there is no molestation under Libertarian doctrine.

"If the child is willing, then it can't be a crime under Libertarian law." - VD.

"Riiiight, and far left liberals like to eat live puppies." - NumenTard

DavidW
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2012
#1 cause of death in the USA = Heart disease from eating livestock and the products derived from livestock.
#1 Use of oil = Livestock production
#1 Use of land = Livestock production
#1 Biggest waste of grown food = Livestock production
#1 Methane greenhouse gas producer = Livestock production
#1 Use of water = Livestock production

Let's face it. When we ensalve, tourture and kill for nothing more than personal gratifaction (when it is NOT NECESSARY) we are behaving very sick and indeed we are sick.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012
Murder on order: Teenage girls call Domino's Pizza delivery woman to home and brutally murder her by stabing her 50 times on doorstep.

http://www.dailym...xRrTY9sx

"When we ensalve, tourture and kill for nothing more than personal gratifaction (when it is NOT NECESSARY) we are behaving very sick and indeed we are sick." - DavidW

Yathink?

What is it about rabid self interest that makes Americans so selfish and murderous?
DavidW
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2012
What is it about rabid self interest that makes Americans so selfish and murderous?


If at any time we attempt to place ourself above the truth and/or life and/or the very real world importance of them (above us) we are decieved or sick.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012
Well said David. You are absolutely right.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2012
Assume that the scientists are right and warming is an imminent problem ...- Sigh

Your questions are loaded with unfounded speculative assumptions, yet you yourself refuse to consider the issue within the framework of existing undisputed realities, that a) existing economies are free market based, and b) socialism is generally rejected in the west - Noumenon.

98 percent of the worlds scientists disagree with you. - Vendickar


False.
98 percent of the worlds scientists agree with AGW. This does not imply even a consensus wrt "immanent catastrophe", for which the present political debate concerns.

The notion that there is not time for existing free market capitalism to evolve and adapt a solution of it's own momentum, is pure unfounded speculation, and is generally more politically motivated than scientifically based.

http://globalchan...s_id/176
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2012
"Not only do most scientists NOT predict imminent catastrophe as a result of the warming of the planet, they formally acknowledge a wide range of uncertainty in the potential outcomes. Catastrophes of all sorts are among those possible outcomes, but few scientists claim these are certain, much less imminent"

http://globalchan...s_id/176

Therefore wrt political solutions, wether it be adaption of redistribution of wealth, social engineering and control of human behavior as the incompetent UN puts forth, the "debate" is DOA,.. as existing economic forces are based on free market capitalism and freedom of choice.

Again, with such a impractical ideology, not only is it required to control the global climate, but to do so, requires the defeat of free capitalism and freedom of choice,... working against such natural forces is suspiciously stupid.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2012
It is guaranteed that all 98 percent of those scientists believe that a 8'C warming is an extinction level event. And it only takes 4'C of warming in the short term to generate 8'C of warming in the long term.

Models show that a 3.5'C initial warming is most probable unless current CO2 emissions are lowered by around 90 percent.

"This does not imply even a consensus wrt "immanent catastrophe", for which the present political debate concerns." - NumenTard

You won't see the "immanent" global meltdown. But your children will should they have the unfortunate fate of having you as their father.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2012
Define "imminent" as it is used in your quote - shown below.

"but few scientists claim these are certain, much less imminent" - NumenTard

Does "imminent" mean Tomorrow? Next Week, Month, Year, Next Decade? Next Century?

The entire Denialist argument is based on lies, cherry picking and dishonest attribution.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2012
Under Libertarian doctrine, prostitution is legal, sacred, commerce.

Under Libertarian doctrine, a child can at any time assert their adulthood.

Therfore under Libertarian doctrine, a child can at any time assert their right to engage in prostitution.

Further, under Libertarian doctrine, a child can at any time decide to engage as an adult in any sexual activity they wish.

Hence if the child is willing, there is no molestation under Libertarian doctrine.

"If the child is willing, then it can't be a crime under Libertarian law." - VD.

"Riiiight, and far left liberals like to eat live puppies." - NumenTard
Sigh
5 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2012
Assume that the scientists are right

Your questions are loaded with unfounded speculative assumptions

Read my first word above. I know your opinion and therefore asked you to engage in a thought experiment. Persuade me that the market can do more than I think it can.

I use the term "evolve" in my statement that 'we have to evolve off of co2 based energy', to imply that, it is not known in advance how this will actually come about. In general, we do not know how technology and civilization will advance in 100 years.

I did not ask you to predict technology, I ask how you think market forces will drive development and adoption of technology that would limit warming.

If you just can't bring yourself to do this, take another scenario. Assume that there is an asteroid that, 98% of astronomers say, if not deflected in 5 years will certainly hit Earth in 70. How do market forces encourage deflection? Or do they inspire inaction and hope for better technology in 70 years?
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2012
I did not ask you to predict technology, I ask how you think market forces will drive development and adoption of technology that would limit warming.


I have already explained that at least a few times in the above posts. Of course technology is relevant as that is what will get us off CO2 based energy, and the market will have to be the arbiter in what is adapted and when. This is just reality that you ignore.

The free market system based on capitalism, is an existent Reality,.. while leftist solutions are NOT a reality and have little to no chance of becoming a reality.

How about YOU explain to me how social engineering, redistribution of wealth, and global control and regulation of energy use, is working so far. Countries don't even agree on basic protocol,.. and have rejected UN protocols that aim to redistribut wealth and potentially damage economies
Noumenon
1.1 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2012
Where are the electric cars, solar panels, and wind mills? Where is the green industry? Where is the infastructure for electric cars? Where is the regulation and control of western economies? By the UN's own admitence they have failed.

Therefore, our only hope is that which has brought us to our existent civilized state, economic free market forces.

I don't need to justify the free market system to you, when obviously it has already justified itself in the technological reality we live in now. There is no profit potential for electric cars right this minute, and no force exists that can force this into the free market.

The reality is, there are no practical solutions right this minute, and no one is going to submit to social engineering. These are realities that you continue to ignore.
Sigh
3 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2012
I have already explained that at least a few times in the above posts

If you believe that, you haven't understood the question. You keep saying the market will provide, without saying how. What creates the demand for those technologies, and when?

How about YOU explain to me how social engineering, redistribution of wealth, and global control and regulation of energy use, is working so far.

"Social engineering" is too vague to comment on, I don't know whether redistribution would help with this problem, I don't know whether global control is needed, and there has been no effective regulation largely because too many people either deny there is a problem or say it is someone else's problem. The denial seems motivated by perceived costs to other values. That's why I ask for solutions that respect these values. I will be equally happy with a free market solution or an admission of failure and end to obstruction. But you offer only statements of faith in markets.
Origin
1 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2012
Consumption driving environment damage
This is mostly true, but the consumption is the mechanism, which stimulates the development/evolution of cheaper and environmentally less demanding products too. Every attempt to control consumption with another mechanism than the free market bring the socialism with all its negative connotations: space for corruption and ideology.

For me the attempts to restrict the consumption artificially are as harmful, as the blocking of the further research of environmentally more friendly technologies (like the cold fusion). After all, the ostracising of the cold fusion research is the same violation of free market principles, like the application of communistic ideas about centralized distribution of resources. In both cases the minority of people prohibits the competitive behaviour of the rest.
Origin
1 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2012
Now we can ask, how is it possible, that in the capitalistic society some group of people become a proponent of anti-democratic and anti-free market tendencies like the blocking of cold fusion research. The explanation is simple: these attempts are blocked with researchers which are payed from taxis and mandatory fees of the rest of society. The community of scientists is therefore behaving like the island of communism inside of free-market society together with all its negative connotation, including the blocking of the competition of energy production technologies at the free market. IMO so-called the "fossil lobby" is not the main culprit here, because this lobby is still driven with free market rules as a whole. The real source of problem are the people, whose thinking has become communistic (i.e. driven with totalitarian thinking) by the very nature of the sponsoring of the scientific research - i.e. it's a penalty for academic freedom of scientific research.
Origin
1 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2012
The memo is therefore simple: if we separate some group of people from the free-market mechanisms and principles, then this group will become hostile to them soon or later, whenever it becomes sufficiently influential. It does apply to the politicians in the same way, like for the workers at the patent office or for scientists, who are payed from mandatory fees. These people will not become a commies in their hearts, but their activities will not become different from the activities of the members of soviet politburo. Unfortunately, the real actions - not the political proclamations - is what counts here.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 11, 2012
These people will not become a commies in their hearts,

Why not?
And why does it matter?
Power corrupts and people get too comfortable with other people's money.
If the hearts of 'these people' were in the right place, they would be ashamed of supporting socialism, ashamed of plundering their neighbor's wealth.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2012
If you believe that, you haven't understood the question. You keep saying the market will provide, without saying how. What creates the demand for those technologies, and when?


Again, I've already explained that at least three times in this thread. Please don't be lazy, search where I mentioned the price of oil going up inevitably and what will occur as a result. There is little profit motive now to develope alternatives because oil is cheap. Profit motive is the force that causes alternatives to be adapted. The gov will tank economies if it tries to force ad-hoc alternatives.

You ask "when", but such a question is like asking what will civilization and technology be like in 50 years,... it's not answerable until the conditions are ready for the market to adapt whatever alternative is able to compete with oil at that time.

The entire industrial revolution did not occur via government planning and control,... it occured as a result of profit seekers.
GSwift7
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 11, 2012
The UN has such a long history of overblown statistics and failed predictions, that nobody takes them seriously any more. Well, I guess there are always plenty of fools who can't even bother to use Google or Wiki, and will therefore believe anything they are told.

It's not that the UN actually believes what they are saying either. They know better, but the way politics and finance work, they are forced to make these wild claims and predictions. They say that x,xxx,xxx,xxx people are going to starve or die of sickness or become refugees from civil war, etc. Then they ask for aid money and only get maybe 20% of what they asked for, which is actually more like what they needed in the first place. That would be great, except that then they waste so much of the money through corruption and mismanagement.

The huge anual climate conventions at exotic locations are a great example of UN waste. Who goes to those things? You may be surprised if you google it.
Sigh
5 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2012
Please don't be lazy, search where I mentioned the price of oil going up inevitably and what will occur as a result.

You have just confirmed that you still don't understand my question, even though I have also explained it repeatedly.

You wrote:
It will gradually increase in cost over the course of several generations. In fact, we will never "run out" of oil, it will just remain in the ground as too expensive to extract, as compared to alternatives.
oil will become Depleted, expensive, and left in ground unused

If that is your best answer to my question of what drives adoption of technologies that would limit warming (and ocean acidification), then you concede the market has NO mechanism to account for environmental cost except for direct or indirect government intervention. Direct by regulation or indirect by passing and enforcing laws that let you sue those who impose externalities on you. You say oil doesn't become expensive because of emissions.

Cont.
Sigh
5 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2012
Neither, to my knowledge, did CFCs become more expensive because they were destroying the ozone layer. What would have been your market-based solution for that? Can you assign property rights to the ozone layer? How would you make money from preserving it?

And your silence on my asteroid thought experiment suggests you also concede that markets have a short time horizon, and can't deal with problems where actions have to be taken long before costs become apparent.

I'll rephrase my question again, and separate its two components: How do market forces link prices to externalities like environmental impact? How do market forces deal with problems where actions have to be taken long before costs become apparent?

Can you see that oil prices rising because of scarcity is utterly irrelevant to these questions?

You can make me happy by proving me wrong. Show me that the market can deal with this. But I need an argument, not a statement of faith.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2012
market has NO mechanism to account for environmental cost e

It is called property rights.
Govts have failed to protect or enforce property rights leading to environmental costs.
Love Canal is a fine example of how govts failed on many levels. The market solution was working just fine. Hooker Chemical owned the toxic waste dump until FORCED to sell it for housing and schools.
The US govt owns navigable rivers and those on the banks of say the Cuyahoga river couldn't sue the polluter upstream.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2012
Can you assign property rights to the ozone layer?

Yes.
Sigh
5 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2012
Can you assign property rights to the ozone layer?

Yes.

Wonderful. Please do explain.
Sigh
5 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2012
@ Noumenon: Here is a nice example of externalities impacting on ecosystem services (listed in the third paragraph): http://phys.org/n...alt.html
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2012
How do market forces link prices to externalities like environmental impact?


You're being too vague with your question. Generally speaking the market is reactionary, which means there must be some actual effect in order to drive some motive response. If there is only speculative theory, there will be little direct effect upon the market, ..so, there will be little motive for people to change behavior and adopt alternatives. This is what your are witnessing now, and is the reason I keep telling you, that the only true resounding solution will have to come via the free market which breeds technological innovation via the mechanism of profit motive.

If a natural resource is depleting, say because of AGW, then the price of that resource will increase, thereby opening up alternative markets that are able to compete at that price point.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2012
Can you assign property rights to the ozone layer?

Yes.

Wonderful. Please do explain.

I own property, the surface of the earth, the land below to the core and the air above to space, including part of the ozone.
Sigh
5 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2012
I own property, the surface of the earth, the land below to the core and the air above to space, including part of the ozone.

So you would sue to enforce preservation of the ozone layer above your bit of land?

If yes, what are the practicalities that determine your chances of success? Whom would you sue? The manufacturers of CFCs? Those who release it into the atmosphere? How would you find them all? Would you need global agreement on how to protect property rights? Would anything prevent the emergence of the analogue of tax havens, countries that attract companies by promising not to enforce property rights outside their borders? If you need global agreement on laws, will that be any easier than global agreement on regulations?
Sigh
5 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2012
How do market forces link prices to externalities like environmental impact?

You're being too vague with your question.

What do you want me to specify?

Generally speaking the market is reactionary, which means there must be some actual effect in order to drive some motive response.

So would you agree that when feedback is delayed, making it cheaper in the long run to act before costs rise, then the longer the delay the less effective the market response? There would be no market response in my asteroid thought experiment?

If there is only speculative theory, there will be little direct effect upon the market

Who decides what is speculative? Those with a vested interest in a warning being false?

This is what your are witnessing now

Also consistent with the data is that people refuse to believe what they don't want to be true because it would cost them money to act on.
Sigh
5 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2012
If a natural resource is depleting, say because of AGW, then the price of that resource will increase, thereby opening up alternative markets that are able to compete at that price point.

If you insist on thinking in terms of depletion, in the case of CO2, what's depleting is the atmosphere's ability to let infrared radiation out, and the ocean ecosystems' ability to handle acidification. Neither has a price point right now.

Possibly ryggesogn2's proposal regarding property rights could be formulated so that it is coherent. I don't know yet, and I don't yet see that it would need any less agreement, or that the agreement would be any easier, than regulation.

And I see both the laws that would protect those property rights and regulations as government intervention. I have no strong a priori preference for one kind of government intervention over another.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2012
If there is only speculative theory, there will be little direct effect upon the market


Who decides what is speculative? Those with a vested interest in a warning being false?


a) the collective genius of mankind, since they are not in fact matching the level of hysteria coming from the AGW alarmists, in action,... and b) science requires verification of future predictions to validate models.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2012
Generally speaking the market is reactionary, which means there must be some actual effect in order to drive some motive response.

So would you agree that when feedback is delayed, making it cheaper in the long run to act before costs rise, then the longer the delay the less effective the market response?


At face value yes, I agree. However, you assume it would be cheaper if the government acted prior to the markets reacting. The government has never done anything efficiently and cost effectively. One only has to look what's going on with the Euro and the USA national debt to see that clearly.

So, while the government would act prior to the market reacting,.. it is not a legitamate assumption that the costs or effectiveness would be better than what would result via the free market.

In addition, as already pointed out, the gov would have to control human behavior through social engineering, and regulate economies, by definition not cost effective.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2012
If world governments have failed to come together to accomplish world issues of several orders of magnitude less complicated than AGW and natural resource depletion, ...what makes you Hope that they can be more effective than the free market, which HAS in fact proved its power.

"The free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history" - Obama

Didn't you vote for him?

There would be no market response in my asteroid thought experiment?

Perhaps not. The orbit of an asteroid can be modeled, predicted, and verified within inches in its path. The collective genius of mankind would absolutely beleive in THAT immenient cataclysm. The free market can't solve wars either, but it can pay for them.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2012
what's depleting is the atmosphere's ability to let infrared radiation out,

No, it is not.
The NPL and NIST have proposed calibrated IR radiometers satellites to accurately measure the energy radiated from the earth.
These were proposed because they really do not KNOW. Current sensors just don't have the accuracy needed.

So you would sue to enforce preservation of the ozone layer above your bit of land?

Why not?
Trouble is our court system is not designed to protect private property. In the US one must prove damages not just violation of your property.
Change the law so that if your property is violated for any reason, you demand it must be stopped OR compensated for by the violator.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2012
If a natural resource is depleting, say because of AGW, then the price of that resource will increase, thereby opening up alternative markets that are able to compete at that price point.


If you insist on thinking in terms of depletion, in the case of CO2, what's depleting is the atmosphere's ability to let infrared radiation out, and the ocean ecosystems' ability to handle acidification. Neither has a price point right now.

You stepped over the point. The above is supposedly effecting natural resources right? That's the point. Those resources effected by AGW have a monetary value, that would rise.
Sigh
5 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2012
a) the collective genius of mankind

That might well go against you, since denial is far less common outside the USA.

And empirically, the wisdom of crowds has been shown to be fairly reliable if 1) decisions are made independently, 2) if the problem does not trigger misleading intuitions and 3) if there is no strong prior preference among conclusions.

Point 1 clearly doesn't apply. For 2, read Stanovich or Gilovich. For 3, compare response to the ozone hole and CO2. Strength of evidence is similar, but with CO2 the conclusion that there is no problem is preferred, because of cost. Also I read of a study where a conclusion was accepted by conservatives if the proposed solution was geoengineering, by the left if it was regulation. Motivated cognition does play a part.

b) science requires verification of future predictions to validate models.

A common misunderstanding that would exclude geology and cosmology from the sciences. You need to test your theory on new data,
Sigh
5 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2012
a) the collective genius of mankind

That might go against you, denial being less common outside the US. And empirically, the wisdom of crowds is most reliable when decisions are independent (not true here), when there are no misleading intuitions (read Stanovich or Gilovich) and when there is no prior preference among conclusions. That last is definitely not true. Compare the response to warnings about the ozone hole (cost to individuals not apparent) and warming (cost very much expected). For a relevant case of motivated cognition, see Kahan et al (2011) http://dx.doi.org...0.511246

b) science requires verification of future predictions to validate models.
A common misunderstanding that would exclude geology and cosmology from the sciences (thus popular with creationists). It is necessary that you test your model on new data, which was not used to derive the model. It is not necessary that the data are only generated after you create the model.
Sigh
5 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2012
My comment didn't seem to upload, I revised, tried again, and had two. Sorry about that.

And I was referring to two different motivated cognition studies, but have the link only for the second.

Why not?
Trouble is our court system is not designed to protect private property. In the US one must prove damages not just violation of your property.
Change the law so that if your property is violated for any reason, you demand it must be stopped OR compensated for by the violator.

Your proposal sounds good to me, though I do worry about the practicalities I listed. Do you have solutions for those?

How would the level of compensation be determined? The market price offered for you to forego your property right might be a lot less than the price at which you are willing to sell. What should be the court's guideline?
Sigh
5 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2012
My comment didn't seem to upload, I revised, tried again, and had two. Might happen again, seeing that my previous attempt to explain hasn't shown in 15 minutes.

Obama
Didn't you vote for him?

Being a UK, not US citizen, it's not my choice. Besides, I would be reluctant to vote for someone who is weak on the environment http://www.guardi...promises and worse than Bush on civil liberties http://www.guardi...ck-obama

The orbit of an asteroid can be modeled, predicted, and verified within inches in its path.

But in discussions on climate, lots of people deny that computer models can have any worth, ever. And if asteroid deflection cost a lot, I do think many would deny the problem or claim better future technology would make it cheaper to deal with the problem later. Anyway, how would the market solve the problem?
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2012
Besides, I would be reluctant to vote for someone who is weak on the environment promises and worse than Bush on civil liberties


The fact that you would display concern over civil liberties while defending social engineering as solutions to AGW, tells me you have zero clue about what "progressive liberalism" and social engineering actually is in practice.

To them civil liberty is to be defeated, in order to control the masses. They desire to control and regulate every aspect of your life.

This is the political mentality that is driving anti-capitalist solutions to the cartoonish end of the world alarmist hysteria, constantly streaming on sites like physorg.
Sigh
5 / 5 (2) Jun 12, 2012
The fact that you would display concern over civil liberties while defending social engineering as solutions to AGW

You keep making that accusation without telling me what you mean by it. If you don't explain what I am accused of, how can I comment?

To them civil liberty is to be defeated, in order to control the masses. They desire to control and regulate every aspect of your life.

This is the political mentality that is driving anti-capitalist solutions to the cartoonish end of the world alarmist hysteria, constantly streaming on sites like physorg.

I have never seen that among people I know. Perhaps it's less common than you think. And given my experience, your charge looks to me as alarmist as you say climate scientists are. Take what you feel and apply it to your claim. It is likely to be similar to how I feel about it.

And are you actually aware that there is such a thing as the libertarian left? If not, then the world is more complicated than you think.
vlaaing peerd
3 / 5 (2) Jun 12, 2012
If world governments have failed to come together to accomplish world issues...free market, which HAS in fact proved its power.

They did accomplish, except your country wasn't participating. You talk free market, but US needs artificial pricing, lobbying in favour of protecting markets over ecological benefit, pushing consumers to keep consuming and if their money has run out, do it on credit. Once credit is no longer backed your government will pump some other 150 billion into it so both consumers can keep buying and markets can keep cashing.

free market and with it protecting the environment... Your government isn't doing any of both. You fear socialism while your government is controlling the people by putting them in debt and controlling the market by dancing to the moods of lobbying corporates which kills free enterpreneurship. You have no free market, no privacy, controlled prices and maintaining the inequality equilibrium by tax. Who became today's USSR?
Sigh
5 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2012
There would be no market response in my asteroid thought experiment?

Perhaps not. The orbit of an asteroid can be modeled, predicted, and verified within inches in its path. The collective genius of mankind would absolutely beleive in THAT immenient cataclysm. The free market can't solve wars either, but it can pay for them.

Let's say people are convinced the asteroid will hit in 70 years if not deflected in 5. What market mechanism provides the incentive to deflect the asteroid?
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2012
There would be no market response in my asteroid thought experiment?

Perhaps not. The orbit of an asteroid can be modeled, predicted, and verified within inches in its path. The collective genius of mankind would absolutely beleive in THAT immenient cataclysm. The free market can't solve wars either, but it can pay for them.

Let's say people are convinced the asteroid will hit in 70 years if not deflected in 5. What market mechanism provides the incentive to deflect the asteroid?


I can't think of any. The role of government is in part about national security. I never suggested the free market is a replacement for governments basic roles, nor have I suggested the government has no role in the AGW issue,.. in fact I've already stated as much.

My issue is with socialism, fraudulent hysteria, and anti-capitalist sentiment.

Here's an example;

http://phys.org/n...ale.html
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2012
,... and in that example of a typical far left alarmist, see gregor1's posts showing past failed predictions.
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2012
Let's say people are convinced the asteroid will hit in 70 years if not deflected in 5. What market mechanism provides the incentive to deflect the asteroid?

Defense is a legitimate function of govt and the govt solicits concepts for such a defense as they have with all other defense projects.
Why are 'progressives' opposed to defense?
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 13, 2012
The fact that you would display concern over civil liberties while defending social engineering as solutions to AGW,...

You keep making that accusation without telling me what you mean by it.


To them civil liberty is to be defeated, in order to control the masses. They desire to control and regulate every aspect of your life.

This is the political mentality that is driving anti-capitalist solutions to the cartoonish end of the world alarmist hysteria, constantly streaming on sites like physorg.

I have never seen that among people I know. Perhaps it's less common than you think. And given my experience, your charge looks to me as alarmist as you say climate scientists are. ...


http://www.myfoxn...food-ban

Multiply this example a thousand fold to understand the "progressive" left and socialistic mentality. You're are not paying attention to world politics.
Sigh
5 / 5 (1) Jun 16, 2012
Multiply this example a thousand fold to understand the "progressive" left and socialistic mentality. You're are not paying attention to world politics.

Multiply thousandfold in severity, or number? There are many thousands of governmental organisations, from national government to local councils. If you could find only 1000 silly regulations among the lot, you are a long way from seeing evidence of socialism. And if you want silly, try this http://www.youtub...Zr2m4r7M and the follow-ups.

You still haven't defined social engineering. What do you mean on the spectrum from the Khmer Rouge Year Zero over homes for votes (http://en.wikiped...scandal) to Nudge (http://en.wikiped...ook%29)? If you include the last, then you must see advertising as social engineering. Would you include that, too?
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2012

Let's say people are convinced the asteroid will hit in 70 years if not deflected in 5. What market mechanism provides the incentive to deflect the asteroid?


Survival. Sales drop if everyone dies.