Even if they are, Owen, I doubt they will change course. Their tunnel vision seems to allow them only to anticipate their next quarterly profit statement.
It's interesting that the professional denialist community is resurrecting really old, turn-of-the-20th century, nonsense now. One is how putting greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is like applying thin paint to a window. Once you put enough coats on the window is totally opaque. After that you can put as many additional coats on and it won't make a difference. Their argument is that we passed that opaque threshold a long time ago so everything we add now is "free." It was a theory disproven around 1910 but it sounds novel, and plausible, today and so they'll recycle it.
The other pitch, especially favoured by Heritage Foundation types, is the argument that, even if we eliminated all carbon emissions today, we'll still be in for global warming - i.e. we'll be making huge sacrifices and won't see any benefit in our lifetimes. That's partly true but they excise the follow on argument that, while we can't make the situation demonstrably better for most of this century, we can make it infinitely worse of your kids and grandkids by following their suggestions we just keep on with emissions as usual.
Their sophistry is very powerful and attractive to a good many who won't do things that don't benefit themselves in the short term. That's a pretty damning statement on our social condition today but that's reality. Our social predisposition to doing nothing greatly empowers the denialists.
Gwynne Dyer recently wrote of the "third option" in dealing with global warming. The first he described as meaningful and effective action to decarbonize our societies and economies. This, he figures, is a pipe dream. The second he described as economic and social collapse triggered by runaway climate change.
His "third way" envisions devastating climate change impacts triggering panic responses that will be severe in cost and dislocation and limited in their effectiveness that we'll nonetheless grab because we'll have no other choice. He makes a pretty compelling argument that we're lining up for the "third way" response.
Suddenly, being in one's 60s isn't such a bad thing.
The do-nothing option preached by groups like the Heritage Foundation sound like an apt description of the corporate mentality, in that it looks at the short-term only, with nary a thought to anything beyond. Unfortunately, it is also a pretty good descritption of the worst aspects of our human natures, which is to turn a blind eye on problems until they can no longer be ignored, having reached our own backyards (which I think can be said to have happened in Canada now).
I seem to recall having read Gwyn Dyer also talking about another possible response to climate change after its worst effects are felt: geo-engineering, which is probably the worst possbility, since its effects would be unknowable in advance and could very well be responsible for even greater climatic disasters. Yet I suspect that our overlords will eventually try it anyway, after having allowed the earth to pass the point of no return.
Yes, I think his "third way" envisions the sort of "every man for himself" geo-engineering options he previously mentioned. Unfortunately whatever relief one part of the world main gain by geo-engineering will be offset by additional suffering elsewhere and that will raise some pretty serious global security issues.
This is a train wreck in slow motion. Calgarians can look out their windows to see the new reality. But, as Owen asks, will they connect the dots? No, I don't think the dots will be connected. MoS analogy of a climate boxing match is appropriate: sure, you may be able to take a punch or two in the first round, but how many rounds of fighting can anyone realistically endure?
I think we may have passed the point of no return already. The feedback loops are beginning to vibrate, and I think that they will be amplified logarithmically.
The pessimism you express here is, I suspect, shared by many, Anon. Nonetheless, I think it is incumbent upon us, even if the chances of success are slim, to keep fighting the good fight and hope that people will awaken to the dangers and apply the appropriate pressures to stop this spiral into ever-widening disaster. It is our only hope.
Good one. At least they're going to meet again in 2050. :)
ReplyDeleteThat should leave plenty of time to come up with contingency plans, LeDaro. ;)
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the Petro Barons in Calgary are beginning to connect the dots, Lorne.
ReplyDeleteEven if they are, Owen, I doubt they will change course. Their tunnel vision seems to allow them only to anticipate their next quarterly profit statement.
DeleteIt's interesting that the professional denialist community is resurrecting really old, turn-of-the-20th century, nonsense now. One is how putting greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is like applying thin paint to a window. Once you put enough coats on the window is totally opaque. After that you can put as many additional coats on and it won't make a difference. Their argument is that we passed that opaque threshold a long time ago so everything we add now is "free." It was a theory disproven around 1910 but it sounds novel, and plausible, today and so they'll recycle it.
ReplyDeleteThe other pitch, especially favoured by Heritage Foundation types, is the argument that, even if we eliminated all carbon emissions today, we'll still be in for global warming - i.e. we'll be making huge sacrifices and won't see any benefit in our lifetimes. That's partly true but they excise the follow on argument that, while we can't make the situation demonstrably better for most of this century, we can make it infinitely worse of your kids and grandkids by following their suggestions we just keep on with emissions as usual.
Their sophistry is very powerful and attractive to a good many who won't do things that don't benefit themselves in the short term. That's a pretty damning statement on our social condition today but that's reality. Our social predisposition to doing nothing greatly empowers the denialists.
Gwynne Dyer recently wrote of the "third option" in dealing with global warming. The first he described as meaningful and effective action to decarbonize our societies and economies. This, he figures, is a pipe dream. The second he described as economic and social collapse triggered by runaway climate change.
His "third way" envisions devastating climate change impacts triggering panic responses that will be severe in cost and dislocation and limited in their effectiveness that we'll nonetheless grab because we'll have no other choice. He makes a pretty compelling argument that we're lining up for the "third way" response.
Suddenly, being in one's 60s isn't such a bad thing.
The do-nothing option preached by groups like the Heritage Foundation sound like an apt description of the corporate mentality, in that it looks at the short-term only, with nary a thought to anything beyond. Unfortunately, it is also a pretty good descritption of the worst aspects of our human natures, which is to turn a blind eye on problems until they can no longer be ignored, having reached our own backyards (which I think can be said to have happened in Canada now).
DeleteI seem to recall having read Gwyn Dyer also talking about another possible response to climate change after its worst effects are felt: geo-engineering, which is probably the worst possbility, since its effects would be unknowable in advance and could very well be responsible for even greater climatic disasters. Yet I suspect that our overlords will eventually try it anyway, after having allowed the earth to pass the point of no return.
Yes, I think his "third way" envisions the sort of "every man for himself" geo-engineering options he previously mentioned. Unfortunately whatever relief one part of the world main gain by geo-engineering will be offset by additional suffering elsewhere and that will raise some pretty serious global security issues.
DeleteThis is a train wreck in slow motion. Calgarians can look out their windows to see the new reality. But, as Owen asks, will they connect the dots? No, I don't think the dots will be connected. MoS analogy of a climate boxing match is appropriate: sure, you may be able to take a punch or two in the first round, but how many rounds of fighting can anyone realistically endure?
ReplyDeleteI think we may have passed the point of no return already. The feedback loops are beginning to vibrate, and I think that they will be amplified logarithmically.
The hope that I have is the hope that I am wrong.
The pessimism you express here is, I suspect, shared by many, Anon. Nonetheless, I think it is incumbent upon us, even if the chances of success are slim, to keep fighting the good fight and hope that people will awaken to the dangers and apply the appropriate pressures to stop this spiral into ever-widening disaster. It is our only hope.
ReplyDelete