ROG RESPONDS TO ANDY'S "REASONED RESPONSES" ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE PATH
TO SUSTAINABILITY
TO ANDY AND 3WD
Andy:
Note to self: Still need work on self-discipline. Long way to go to
enlightenment
Rog (in Shaolin temple voice):
Ahh grasshopper. The secret is to realize you ALWAYS held the pebble in your
hand.
Andy;
My reasoned response:
... "I am not really advocating anything. I am
a bit of a fatalist on this topic." To which I followed up with "Nature
will ultimately correct our mistakes. However, if I am wrong and we are
able to make any progress, we first need to change values and belief
systems in America.
Rog:
No doubt we need to change values, but the tougher question is "which way do
we change them?" I suggest that your way will lead to more problems and less
sustainability. As support for this view, I offerred that wealthier, free
enterprise, growing countries have significantly better empirical
environmental sustainability scores than do poor or communist countries. You
don't address this fact, and instead continue to just restate your
unsupported assumption that economic growth is bad. Address the issue. Either
give some support for your assumption or offer evidence that refutes my
position. Calling me silly or arrogant or obnoxious doesn't do a thing to
help your argument.
Andy:
Finally,
your suggestion of renewable fuels IS a step in the right direction,
however you have no understanding of the consequences of such a shift.
To repeat, we cannot support the existing economy, much less a growing
one, without the use of finite stocks of nonrenewable resources.
Economic growth has required the intensification of fossil fuel use
throughout the industrial age; there are no indicators that this trend
has changed. Despite the claims of a few exalting the virtues of an
information economy, fossil fuel use has continued to grow along the
same trajectory as economic growth in every industrialized nation.
Rog:
You provided information that oil is a substantially more efficient source of
energy and that petroleum also is used in fertilizers and pesticides.
Furthermore, you said there is no "perfect substitution" for it. My response
is that:
a) There is no lack of "imperfect substitutes" including cleaner and
renewable sources (they are still less economical at this time though)
b) If there are any unsubstitutable petroleum-based products that are
essential to the working of every conceivable wealthy society (something I
doubt), then it further behooves us to follow my course... to develop
alternative energy sources quickly so that the remaining petroleum can be
used for these irreplaceable products.
c) Lower growth (your solution) without the research into substitute energy
sources that are clean and renewable doesn't solve anything. It just delays
the crises (real or imagined). Your solution is a non-solution.
Andy's reasoned response:
Not the entire field of economics, but certainly the entire standard
orthodox neoclassical theory, upon which the vast majority of American
economic policy is made. I know it is difficult to accept that you have
been brainwashed into some kind of "vice like grip", but you have
repeatedly demonstrated this in your contributions to the MOQ
discussion, thus the source of many of your mental blocks.
Rog:
The accusation of brainwashing is the cheapest rhetorical trick in the bag.
Please present your position without lowering the discussion to this
stiffling level. Two other members of this forum try to use this trick too.
Very bad form.
Andy:
I know that
you have some inkling of this in the back of your mind, for you have
repeatedly brought up the virtues of complexity theory to the discussion
also. If your knowledge of economics is as great as you believe it is,
then you certainly know that the neoclassical model does not, cannot,
nor will it ever be able to, fit within the framework of an evolving
(learning) complex adaptive system. And we both know that the economy is
a complex adaptive system.
Rog:
No, actually YOU have an inkling of the correct answer in the back of YOUR
mind. Just kidding. Again, this type of argument won't get us anywhere.
You disagreed with a statement of mine that scarcity will lead to higher
prices, reduced demand, conversions to alternative sources, increased
incentives to investigate alternatives and to better economics for extraction
and refining. Your refutation hinges upon the inadequacies of economics to
model complex systems. As you allude, I am familiar with complex adaptive
systems, and must admit that I see no reason why classical economics won't
work in this situation. I suspect you are just obfuscating the issue (but I
could be wrong).
Andy's reasoned response:
No, Roger. This is not an unsubstantiated appeal. I pointed out the
unique quality of oil and its crucial importance to supporting the world
economy. I don't have any restricted access to knowledge of the natural
science (I am a social scientist, after all), but there are no
substitutes for oil, when it comes to its exclusive role in the global
economy. This knowledge only requires a small amount of research. And,
yes, that research will require SOME familiarity of the natural sciences.
Rog:
Excuse me, Dr Andy. I too have extensively researched it, and I find that the
reason petroleum plays such a key role is economics and history. It is
efficient and cheap, and therefore it has become the energy source of choice
which the rest of the economy has been shaped around. Lets rebuild our
future economy around renewable and clean energy sources.
Andy's continued reasoned response:
I am sorry, but I am missing the facts here. Are they buried somewhere
within this example of reasoned argument that does not resort to
ill-defined rhetorical dismissal. Oh there it is; you don't TRUST the
international court; and you THINK Kyoto is a MISTAKE.
Rog:
My brevity was both intentional and acknowledged. Since you want a more
complete answer on my take on these, I would be glad to oblige you...
The mistake in Kyoto is that it suppresses the growth and wealth that are
vital to making the transition to cleaner and renewable energy. It is a
massive tax amounting to a reduction in GDP of 1 to 2 percent. Most
importantly, it doesn't solve the problem, it simply delays it by six years
or so. It is, in brief, the Andy solution -- focusing only upon delaying the
inevitable yet accomplishing the unstated goal of reducing growth. I strongly
prefer investing in new technology and cleaner energy sources instead of
Kyoto.
As for the International Court, though way off topic, I believe my given
reason is quite adequate. It is not wise to give control to one you do not
trust. I do not trust them because I think that many nations use forums such
as these to undermine the US. I can give examples if you are interested.
Also, it is not wise to replace the competition of ideas with absolute
uniformity of thought. I could go on for hours on this topic, but suggest we
do so under a different thread.
Andy:
Roger, let me
make an unsubstantiated remark here. You did not come to the realization
that there was any global warming until relatively recently. For many
years, you dismissed this as the ranting of some crazed
environmentalists out to destroy the economy. Come on, profess; you were
not alone - many others joined you in this, at most times, vicious
dismissal of environmentalist's warnings...
Now, out of nowhere, the
attackers of "global warming alarmists" of the past, of which I suspect
you were one, are stepping up to say that it is a reality as if they
have known this all along. When will you acknowledge the other
environmental calamities that await our immediate attention before being
imposed on us in the near future. Like global warming, I assume it will
happen when it is already too late.
Rog:
And you call me "silly"? What is your "reasoned response" here? That if you
recognized global warming before me then you are probably right about
everything else too? Or is it that those that believe something before there
is strong evidence are logically superior to those that require proof? Or
that being right on one alarmist trend makes one right on every alarmist
trend -- even those contrary to evidence? I must have skipped out on this
chapter of Aristotelian logic.
Most importantly though, since when have I neglected environmental concerns?
My argument is that your slowed-growth strategy is the equivalent of drawn
out global suicide. You just delay the inevitable and suppress our capacity
to use focused social and intellectual power to solve the world's problems.
(not to mention that your solution is un-enforceable except with the threat
of force).
Please don't make up a caricature of me as anti-environment. It isn't true.
My argument isn't that we shouldn't be alarmed, it is that we need to respond
in the exact opposite of the direction you recommend. And you have yet to
counter my arguments (except with repeating your assumptions).
But to answer your question, I am still not sure that Global warming is a
reality. I just believe that it is prudent to treat the threat as realistic.
The burden of proof for science (which is not conclusive on the subject)
doesn't have to be the same burden we use when catastrophe is possible. In
light of the down side, we should treat the threat as real, with the
knowledge that we shouldn't do something stupid (like slow down economic and
technological growth) until we do have more proof. On the other hand,
research and investment into clean replenishable energy makes sense
regardless of whether or not global warming occurs. So does emphasis on
reduced population growth. Thus my solution again beats yours hands down.
But I am frequently wrong ... I mean brainwashed,
Rog
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:20 BST