It's a biggie: What's black and white and green all over? Another dodgy dossier
I await with some dread the moderator’s approved selection of rabid deniers and righteous believers knocking spots off each other as the rest of us cower below the artillery exchange. It seems like it has been ever thus.
In my pleas that we do something (I accept debate is required while evidence of practical ROIs on worthwhile proposals, across all measures, from money to planetary benefit, is established beyond doubt) whilst all the talk detracts from action, I have often also appealed for the comforting sanity of facts, for normal folk such as myself to try to arrive at some form of objective notions on what may be the best course(s).
So I was/am pleased to see that this has some, and seemingly more than worthy ones, to chew upon. I also do note that, as with any potential agenda, facts can be edited in or omitted to steer the argument to a desired conclusion. But some here seem pretty clear, incontrovertible... and damning. At least to what I care most about, because yet again I see the necessary cause (that I, personally espouse) of a reduction in waste, improvement in efficiency and an overall acceptance that ‘we’ can’t really sustain the way we are living too much longer, has been undermined by less than coherent policy and claim in the name of some other things less noble, more self-interested and short term than sorting out a future for the coming generations.
Of course the media are pretty complicit, from equal ‘tomorrow’s headline’ self interest. Striking assertions are almost all virtually unquestioned. They are good for ratings.
So it is eye-openingly honest, but rather shocking to learn that it is ‘easier for us just to repeat the claims of people such as Stern (or any other pro/con activist or big oil-funded mouthpiece – the riposte du jour to any counter these days), sexing them up as we go along.’ That’ll serve the public right then. I must thank you for the tip about ‘Investigation’ which I will track down immediately.
I don’t know if this piece is attempting a mea culpa, but I’ll take what ever I can get.
Some doubts I must confess I have arrived at myself. I have to say any projection beyond 2100 has to be "particularly unreliable" short of engaging Hitchhikers Guide’s Deep Thought, which ironically I believe turned out to be our planet. But making and feeding off such projections has turned into a very lucrative industry for some. And the best part is... if you turn out be wrong, who cares? You’re already nowhere to be found to offer a refund!
I don’t claim to understand a fraction of the economic debate, but to the point that the rich today need not make sacrifices for the poor tomorrow, they may or may not on average be 12 times better-off than we are now but, like Midas, gold is not much good if there is no green to eat. Surely a more appropriate point is that a few quite eminent people are making pretty firm, dire noises, and it seems a tad overconfident, not to say foolhardy, to simply say ‘carry on smoking’ and wait and see if there is indeed a gas leak as time progresses.
It is a shame I get to the end to find out that, yet again, there is no suggested best approach to climate change. And I must look elsewhere. I will.
But meantime, to try and improve an uncertain future, I will pay a fair bit now, so long as it is managed by those who I can trust to do it fairly, and without organisational agenda, targets or career gain, ahead of doing what’s right, practical and effective.
ADDENDUM: I have just read a coincidentally complementary set of pieces to this, as a totally Kismetic consequence of a posting by the ever-excellent Dr. Ben Goldacre of Bad Science, who has just, and justly, won an award (with the bonus of another relevant piece, for another place and time on the site) for an article on the manipulation of stats.
3 comments:
Actually, the Stern Report's chapters 4, 5 and 6 are titled "Policy responses for mitigation", "Policy responses for adaptation" and "International Collective Action". He makes numerous specific suggestions. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm.
Tom
From the second paragraph of the introduction part 4 of the Stern Report, "The first essential element of climate change policy is carbon pricing."
Tom
Tom,
You are, of course, right. I haven't read it. Bits, yes. Summaries, yes. Other commentaries, yes. And I'm not too sure when I'll find the time (paid or otherwise) to do so. And hence I should be extra cautious in my own commentary when I use as my research and sources the bits that have been included (or ommitted) by others with, as we all accept, potential agendas to push. I guess I had figured that by streering a course between the many critiques I had read, from all sides of the enviro-spectrum, I had a fair-ish idea of what was in it, and what it was trying to do with such information inside.
I will of course try and look at the chapters you have kindly flagged via the website link. If you have read some of my postings you will gather I am big on do, not so thrilled about don't (but accept that it often has to be considered), and always more than interested in who... is coming out with these instructions, and for what possible reasons.
You also use tantalsingly brevity so it is a tad hard to see where you're going by way of argument. So I hope I can offer that while I see many merits of something like 'carbon pricing', I remain very cautious about the details I have heard so far from any quarter, for all of the reasons above.
Hence the intro to part 4 will be my very first port of call.
Thanks for engaging.
Post a Comment