The politics of surrender
Surrender is an interesting word. Sometimes the need for surrender comes quickly, like losing an election by a landslide. Othertimes the need comes slowly as the way things have always been done fails its past success.
Surrender can mean boldly taking a new direction, giving up past successes and pride and admitting a better way might exist. Surrender can be about revolution from within.
I basically feel all politically feasible responses to global warming are insufficient to the need, talking of 80% reduction of CO2 emissions need NOT mean 80% reduction in our "standard of living", but if not a direct reduction, ultimately I think either we need less consumption or less people, and neither is politically acceptable.
It is an interesting economic dilemma, given limited resources, where do you put your energy? If the river is rising and you're SURE the dike is gonna break sooner or later, maybe its time to stop repairing and head to higher ground, or maybe delaying the breach by minutes or hours can still allow more people and resources to be saved from destruction. OR maybe you're just a pessimist and an all out strategic effort CAN save the day once, more and the dike can hold the storm waters back.
It is nice to think there's always an optimal strategy, but in practice information is always limited and so the future becomes a risk management analysis. Putting billions of dollars into rogue asteriod defenses may or may not be a priority - a 1 hit per 15 million year event probably is best to let it slide, although perhaps a monitoring system is a worthy game to play if you have some resources to spare.
Overall my biggest problem with the GW "debate" is that it is an issue without any moral lines to draw clearly. The problem is not bad guys robbing the bank, but billions of people trying to make the best living they can within choices within their reach. If its true the U.S. releases 30% of the world's nonbiological CO2 emissions, with 5% of the population, clearly we've got the largest share of the "problem". I can play the puritan and say America should clean up our act, stop driving cars, turn off our A/C, shrink our homes, and go back to an agrarian society where animal labor exceeds mechanical labor.
I think it may be better to focus on doing all the EASY stuff to reduce our emissions, expect our cost of living will go up, and muddle towards more local energy resources as we can. In short, I'll take the economists view that resources are limited and need to be prioritized to where we can make the biggest difference soonest. Beyond raising energy/pollution taxes, I don't have a clear picture what we can do to change our ways.
If I lived elsewhere I might be more angry at America, but basically I accept the enemy is hard to see when you look in the mirror, and ask what you could do differently given choices you know.
Anyway, on the side of surrender, I expect perhaps more resources ought to be devoted to rebuilding coastlines in response to expected changes in sea level and weather patterns. I'm not sure how. In rich countries, it could be as simple as insurance companies refusing to insure people in vulnerable areas. Then it's up to government and communities to evaluate their own risks and options.
Poorer countries are another matter. I think we ought to devote as much foreign aid to development as internal aid to development. Centralized planning is always flawed, but perhaps a process could exist to spread knowledge of risks and let people discussion their options and then help them plan their futures, whether that means building dikes or moving to higher ground.
And in the self-interest area, it might be that money is better invested in helping third world countries develop in more sustainable ways than rebuilding our wasteful ways. I mean I'm open to a dollar for dollar analysis - where will a dollar do the most to cut CO2 emissions in 2050. Let's get investing somewhere - think globally and focus where you can make the most difference. Even if that really means "surrender" in ways - maybe most of all a surrender that America will turn itself around without losing a generation to a depression to change expections.
My anger may be misplaced, but I am angry at the entitlement and expectations of Americans, myself included. We are a lost people, dependent upon resources outside our honest grasp, and fearful what will happen if we lose our empire. This must be shead for light to return to our vision.
Surrender can mean boldly taking a new direction, giving up past successes and pride and admitting a better way might exist. Surrender can be about revolution from within.
I basically feel all politically feasible responses to global warming are insufficient to the need, talking of 80% reduction of CO2 emissions need NOT mean 80% reduction in our "standard of living", but if not a direct reduction, ultimately I think either we need less consumption or less people, and neither is politically acceptable.
It is an interesting economic dilemma, given limited resources, where do you put your energy? If the river is rising and you're SURE the dike is gonna break sooner or later, maybe its time to stop repairing and head to higher ground, or maybe delaying the breach by minutes or hours can still allow more people and resources to be saved from destruction. OR maybe you're just a pessimist and an all out strategic effort CAN save the day once, more and the dike can hold the storm waters back.
It is nice to think there's always an optimal strategy, but in practice information is always limited and so the future becomes a risk management analysis. Putting billions of dollars into rogue asteriod defenses may or may not be a priority - a 1 hit per 15 million year event probably is best to let it slide, although perhaps a monitoring system is a worthy game to play if you have some resources to spare.
Overall my biggest problem with the GW "debate" is that it is an issue without any moral lines to draw clearly. The problem is not bad guys robbing the bank, but billions of people trying to make the best living they can within choices within their reach. If its true the U.S. releases 30% of the world's nonbiological CO2 emissions, with 5% of the population, clearly we've got the largest share of the "problem". I can play the puritan and say America should clean up our act, stop driving cars, turn off our A/C, shrink our homes, and go back to an agrarian society where animal labor exceeds mechanical labor.
I think it may be better to focus on doing all the EASY stuff to reduce our emissions, expect our cost of living will go up, and muddle towards more local energy resources as we can. In short, I'll take the economists view that resources are limited and need to be prioritized to where we can make the biggest difference soonest. Beyond raising energy/pollution taxes, I don't have a clear picture what we can do to change our ways.
If I lived elsewhere I might be more angry at America, but basically I accept the enemy is hard to see when you look in the mirror, and ask what you could do differently given choices you know.
Anyway, on the side of surrender, I expect perhaps more resources ought to be devoted to rebuilding coastlines in response to expected changes in sea level and weather patterns. I'm not sure how. In rich countries, it could be as simple as insurance companies refusing to insure people in vulnerable areas. Then it's up to government and communities to evaluate their own risks and options.
Poorer countries are another matter. I think we ought to devote as much foreign aid to development as internal aid to development. Centralized planning is always flawed, but perhaps a process could exist to spread knowledge of risks and let people discussion their options and then help them plan their futures, whether that means building dikes or moving to higher ground.
And in the self-interest area, it might be that money is better invested in helping third world countries develop in more sustainable ways than rebuilding our wasteful ways. I mean I'm open to a dollar for dollar analysis - where will a dollar do the most to cut CO2 emissions in 2050. Let's get investing somewhere - think globally and focus where you can make the most difference. Even if that really means "surrender" in ways - maybe most of all a surrender that America will turn itself around without losing a generation to a depression to change expections.
My anger may be misplaced, but I am angry at the entitlement and expectations of Americans, myself included. We are a lost people, dependent upon resources outside our honest grasp, and fearful what will happen if we lose our empire. This must be shead for light to return to our vision.
posted by Ares Olympus at 2:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home