Billions for Climate Change

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler

How can cleaning up and going green be profitable?

---

http://www.interfaceglobal.com/sustainability.aspx

Yossarian, if you have confidence in the IPCC, this is from their fifth and recent report,which there seems to be agreement upon within the science community. Of course there are skeptics that appear in the minority. The chart is from a separate source, but is common.

"It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."



http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/pro...ig/jul_wld.png

Everybody has a chart to go along with their agenda. Its called advocacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Williamsmith

Everybody has a chart to go along with their agenda. Its called advocacy.

---

Perhaps people with charts and people with agendas have a linear relationship, then.

The Simplicity Institute has a number of interesting publications on the response to climate change: http://simplicityinstitute.org/publications

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gardenarian

The Simplicity Institute has a number of interesting publications on the response to climate change: http://simplicityinstitute.org/publications

---

From the Charter of Sufficiency:

We affirm that property rights are justifiable only to the extent they serve the common good, including the overriding interests of humanitarian and ecological justice.

This is entirely offensive to the foundational principles of the Constituion of the United States. Property rights are equal in importance individually as personal human rights. The founding fathers held the defense of property rights as essential to the establishment of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This is the reason for their response to taxation without representation. Government often first targets property rights through various means as punishments or ways to invalidate individual freedoms. Property rights are not only a first line of defense against abuses but they enable the other rights to follow. It is the essence of the revolution that a citizen could remain on his own land and protect it from richer men. Property ensured power to any citizen and is the conduit by which self reliance and self government flows.

As a result I see the simplicity movement as vulnerable and unsustainable if it gives up these certain rights...property among them.

additionally, ideas of "degrowth and a steady state economic model". go hand in hand with efforts driving acceptance of the climate change wealth redistribution scheme. The fundamental flaw being global governmental meetings are an attempt to force change from the top down and not from bottom up grassroots individual consciousness. As such it will never work and will undoubtedly fuel aggression and violence as a response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Williamsmith

From the Charter of Sufficiency:

We affirm that property rights are justifiable only to the extent they serve the common good, including the overriding interests of humanitarian and ecological justice.



As a result I see the simplicity movement as vulnerable and unsustainable if it gives up these certain rights...property among them.

additionally, ideas of "degrowth and a steady state economic model". go hand in hand with efforts driving acceptance of the climate change wealth redistribution scheme. The fundamental flaw being global governmental meetings are an attempt to force change from the top down and not from bottom up grassroots individual consciousness. As such it will never work and will undoubtedly fuel aggression and violence as a response.

---

As for your first point, property rights are certainly a hallmark of our Constitutional rights. Many some committed simple-livers feel the same way. I think of Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin who espouse distributism, which contrary to what the name suggests, says that the right of everyone to own property is essential for equality and social justice.

Quote:

---

According to distributists, property ownership is a fundamental right,[11] and the means of production should be spread as widely as possible, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism), a few individuals (plutocracy), or corporations (corporatocracy). Distributism, therefore, advocates a society marked by widespread property ownership.[12] Co-operative economist Race Mathews argues that such a system is key to bringing about a just social order.[Wikipedia]

---

Also, here is an article from The American Conservative outlining how distributism would help everyone:

Quote:

---

Returning to America, the task of tackling poverty can seem overwhelming. The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate per capita in the world, while drug use is so endemic that it would now seem that opium is the opiate of the people. But chief among our priorities must be to increase ownership amongst the poorest and to ensure them a living-wage “floor.”

How will this be accomplished? Not mainly through government. No, this vision will be accomplished by envisioning, rather than alienating, business leaders; envisioning them to do things differently in the capitalist economies in which we find ourselves.

---

As far as your second point, this whole climate change summit among world leaders would not have happened if it hadn't been for the individual consciousness and grassroots efforts of thousands of committed scientists and environmentalists. Let's see how this moves forward. Sure there's a chance the movement will be bastardized by the Top, but right now, I'm encouraged by this step in the right direction.

De-growth does not strip our freedoms--it's just a way of restructuring the economy. It doesn't necessarily "redistribute" wealth--i.e. take from you to give to me. It gives us different motivations to spend and save. Gardenarian's website had a good overview of what it would look like living in a de-growth economy.

http://theconversation.com/life-in-a...enjoy-it-32224


Gardenarian: I think I had been to that site once a long time ago, but thank you for the link! I'm looking forward to bookmarking it delving in!

Catherine, I think when I get a chance I'd definitely like to address some of the sticking points....and they are substantial. For instance, how are nations going to punish other nations who do not comply with voluntary reductions? Or as they would like to softly phrase it......"facilitate implementation or promote compliance". Re: CNN Obama Praise Climate Change Agreement. Especially since none of this will be presented to Congress or be funneled through the representative government. In other words, forced down the throats of dissenters. More to come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Williamsmith

Catherine, I think when I get a chance I'd definitely like to address some of the sticking points....and they are substantial. For instance, how are nations going to punish other nations who do not comply with voluntary reductions? Or as they would like to softly phrase it......"facilitate implementation or promote compliance". Re: CNN Obama Praise Climate Change Agreement. Especially since none of this will be presented to Congress or be funneled through the representative government. In other words, forced down the throats of dissenters. More to come.

---

I admit that I haven't read the details on this accord.. so I'll try to come back to the table prepared. But I guess my question for you since you are a law enforcement professional, to what extent do concerns about enforcement drive the need for the law? How do you balance that? It's hard to enforce texting while driving, but the law is still critical, and the individual has to be held accountable for his/her behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Williamsmith

From the Charter of Sufficiency:

We affirm that property rights are justifiable only to the extent they serve the common good, including the overriding interests of humanitarian and ecological justice.

This is entirely offensive to the foundational principles of the Constituion of the United States. Property rights are equal in importance individually as personal human rights. The founding fathers held the defense of property rights as essential to the establishment of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This is the reason for their response to taxation without representation. Government often first targets property rights through various means as punishments or ways to invalidate individual freedoms. Property rights are not only a first line of defense against abuses but they enable the other rights to follow. It is the essence of the revolution that a citizen could remain on his own land and protect it from richer men. Property ensured power to any citizen and is the conduit by which self reliance and self government flows.

As a result I see the simplicity movement as vulnerable and unsustainable if it gives up these certain rights...property among them.

additionally, ideas of "degrowth and a steady state economic model". go hand in hand with efforts driving acceptance of the climate change wealth redistribution scheme. The fundamental flaw being global governmental meetings are an attempt to force change from the top down and not from bottom up grassroots individual consciousness. As such it will never work and will undoubtedly fuel aggression and violence as a response.

---

I'm inclined to agree with you. I can't envision the commissariat wise and fair enough to set up as arbiter of "the common good" or "ecological justice" in determining the extent to which my rights are "justified".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

I'm inclined to agree with you. I can't envision the commissariat wise and fair enough to set up as arbiter of "the common good" or "ecological justice" in determining the extent to which my rights are "justified".

---

Well, as Catholic and a Chesterton fan, what do you think of distributism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catherine

Well, as Catholic and a Chesterton fan, what do you think of distributism?

---

Similar in well-meaning impracticality.

What does the quest for national simplicity look like as it directly relates to climate change?

That's what I think the ordinary person not paying attention to climate changers doesn't understand. The average citizen has tuned out the rhetoric as part of the traffic noise of everyday living but there's a lot riding on many assumptions made by science and scientific theory. As has been dogmatically stated both in this forum and in newspapers and media outlets all across the globe.....climate change is not theory....it is fact.

And so the fact finders are on a quest to prosecute their war on affluence, abundance, consumerism, industrialization, over population, development and economic growth. That war will be prosecuted at the nation level as has been made clear by the recent meetings in Paris.

Leaders are being sent home to "encourage" their populations to change their habits and get in line. Reports back to follow. Punishment for violators. The legal foundation for this punishment will not exist if the rules of the game are not developed and published by the representative government. Which they are not because a presentation to Congress or each countries representative arm of their government would both take too long and face failure. So all this is by passed in the name of saving the planet.

But what time of life would climate changers like to see that would achieve a 2 degree limit to global warming?

A list next..........

To save the planet, this is your life:

1. Communities based on local resources.
2. No internal combustion engine vehicles......everyone works locally and walks or bicycles to work. Only specific products that require large factories would be permitted to be shipped by truck.
3. Shipping of goods by sailboats on seas and a system of canals and waterways.
4. Repurposing of interstate highways and roadways to permaculture.
5. No vacationing to far away places. Little air traffic.
6. A diet based on plant life only. No meat eating.
7. Volunteer activities....more communal living
8. Living without air conditioning and refrigeration
9. Houses refitted with renewable energy sources

Many "experts" in the climate science field say without going all in the planet can't be saved. So how do you get the whole world to adopt this voluntary simplicity?

Force. Financial and physical force.

Quote:

---

To save the planet, this is your life:

1. Communities based on local resources.
2. No internal combustion engine vehicles......everyone works locally and walks or bicycles to work. Only specific products that require large factories would be permitted to be shipped by truck.
3. Shipping of goods by sailboats on seas and a system of canals and waterways.
4. Repurposing of interstate highways and roadways to permaculture.
5. No vacationing to far away places. Little air traffic.
6. A diet based on plant life only. No meat eating.
7. Volunteer activities....more communal living
8. Living without air conditioning and refrigeration
9. Houses refitted with renewable energy sources

Many "experts" in the climate science field say without going all in the planet can't be saved. So how do you get the whole world to adopt this voluntary simplicity?

Force. Financial and physical force.

---

So am I supposed to be scared of that? Is it really any worse than catastrophic warming? Is it supposed to be? Well, I don't think it is. How about that. And the world that exists after catastrophic warming will have plenty of violence and force too. Now maybe you think it will be some peaceful paradise but odds are against that.

Maybe there's no solution (but what logically follows from that is probably not having kids or at least not encouraging your kids have kids if you already have - because they will inherit the type of planet where the living envy the dead). But the unforgivable part is not even trying to grapple with the problem at all (in other words the behavior of our politicians). It is better to go down raging against the dying of the light it is, then to go down without a whimper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Williamsmith

To save the planet, this is your life:

---

I'm OK with most of those, and it's how I try to live now, mostly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Williamsmith

To save the planet, this is your life:

---

Seems like a reasonable start of a list to me, although I'd like to use the house refitted renewable energy to run my refrigerator and charge the fuel cells on my auto like transportation when I'm not using the same energy efficient mass transportation system that ships regionally produced goods to the end user. I assume we're giving ourselves a little time to develop new technology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogar

I assume we're giving ourselves a little time to develop new technology.

---

http://www.sciencealert.com/german-h...fusion-machine

Is it acceptable to use financial and physical force to require everyone live this life? Should we have coerced simplicity or voluntary?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Williamsmith

To save the planet, this is your life:

1. Communities based on local resources.
2. No internal combustion engine vehicles......everyone works locally and walks or bicycles to work. Only specific products that require large factories would be permitted to be shipped by truck.
3. Shipping of goods by sailboats on seas and a system of canals and waterways.
4. Repurposing of interstate highways and roadways to permaculture.
5. No vacationing to far away places. Little air traffic.
6. A diet based on plant life only. No meat eating.
7. Volunteer activities....more communal living
8. Living without air conditioning and refrigeration
9. Houses refitted with renewable energy sources

Many "experts" in the climate science field say without going all in the planet can't be saved. So how do you get the whole world to adopt this voluntary simplicity?

Force. Financial and physical force.

---

While I personally feel that many of us on this forum would embrace these changes, I can't foresee that we would be forced to adopt them. We might simply be shown other choices by entrepreneurs who see a great opportunity. Our transportation will likely be just as accessible, but "green"; maybe meat-eating will not be proscribed, but merely based on what is local and humane; living without air conditioning--I did that when I was too cheap to replace our broken central air system.. yes, it took a while to get used to, but we changed to accommodate that reality and it was really nice to have the windows open all summer and hear the birds.

How do you get the whole world to adopt voluntary simplicity? By promoting the higher order end benefits of it, just like advertisers of old-school products have been doing since the turn of the 20th century.


ETA: Re little air traffic.. hopefully I'll have my million miles by then :)
My guilty pleasure: flying.

Catherine.....prison for guilty pleasures. That's the future if the planet is to be saved.

No coffee or tea unless you live where it can be grown.
No international trade. No need for economic growth.
Government buyback for your cars.....mandatory.
And your electric appliances.
Only one child per family. Abortion mandatory, not a choice and sterilization after one child.

Bae....the wood you heat with....not acceptable anymore. We need the trees, they are rapidly disappearing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Williamsmith

Bae....the wood you heat with....not acceptable anymore. We need the trees, they are rapidly disappearing.

---

The trees I use are not rapidly disappearing, they grow here faster than I can burn through them. The First Nations folks used to burn the whole island to the ground every few years to try to make headway. YMMV, but here they are like weeds/grass.

Related, the first bit of this wonderful book makes the case for woodburning being quite sustainable and ecological in this sort of ecosystem:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...4,203,200_.jpg

Understood but what is the carrying capacity of your island? How many people like you can move there and burn the trees? And more worrisome...the UN has determined wood fires are a major source of soot or black carbon and contributes greatly to climate change. No more wood fires Bae.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Williamsmith

Understood but what is the carrying capacity of your island? How many people like you can move there and burn the trees?

---

About 3x, but they'll have trouble on the food/water side of things first.

Quote:

---

And more worrisome...the UN has determined wood fires are a major source of soot or black carbon and contributes greatly to climate change. No more wood fires Bae.

---

Thus my pointer to Mytting's book, which conveys the Scandinavian take on that.

I get a little skeptical when I hear and read that the simplicity movement is a bottom up consciousness movement driven by grassroots person to person influence that seeks to provide the solution to catastrophic climate change and then observe the leaders of nations taking back agendas from conventions that demonstrate top down political solutions which bypass due process. There isn't room for both and only one will work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Williamsmith

I get a little skeptical when I hear and read that the simplicity movement is a bottom up consciousness movement driven by grassroots person to person influence that seeks to provide the solution to catastrophic climate change and then observe the leaders of nations taking back agendas from conventions that demonstrate top down political solutions which bypass due process. There isn't room for both and only one will work.

---

Well if a problem like global climate change could be dealt with purely through bottom up solutions that would be one thing. I doubt it can, but that's not for philosophical reasons, I just doubt it practically can (anarchism might work better if capitalism as it is presently hadn't destroyed the world - but it has - and left not just a trail of ecological destruction but path dependence). But if our leaders are not going to act sufficiently, then the impetus is on us, to try to push them to act yes, and to act in their place.

Call it plan B and a long shot. Well yes we need public policy, what part of that is hard to understand. But we may live in a system so completely controlled by money etc. that we may not get it yesterday, which is when we need it - or even today - and even getting money out of politics is a longer term goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Williamsmith

I get a little skeptical when I hear and read that the simplicity movement is a bottom up consciousness movement driven by grassroots person to person influence that seeks to provide the solution to catastrophic climate change and then observe the leaders of nations taking back agendas from conventions that demonstrate top down political solutions which bypass due process. There isn't room for both and only one will work.

---

I think more basically about the simplicity movement. Initially it encourages people to adopt a lifestyle that is less cluttered with meaningless or trivial material goods that bind one to a lifestyle of work that inhibit one's growth or desires for a well lived life. At least in my non-literary nutshell. Climate change is an off-shoot or additional benefit.

Climate change itself is a shared, but separate issue. The Clean Energy Act and mandatory vehicle emissions are the types of regulations I agree with. I see some similarities to limiting second hand smoke exposure, where the excesses of some impose health and lifestyle risk to the innocent. Unfortunately, less than two thirds of Americans think climate change is people related and even fewer think we should be doing more about it. I don't necessarily agree with draconian regulations like those in your list that goe against majority opinion, but believe there are some challenges in verifying facts, educating the public and separating the issue from selfish partisan interests.

How are we going to handle second hand wood smoke? It wasn't health-supporting back in the day, and it isn't now. (But Bae's right--the vegetation here is inexorable. I'm confident it will outlive us all.)

I'm not looking forward to living in a Kunstler's paradise, and--given actuarial statistics--I'm not going to worry about it much.

No government is going to exact any force on their own citizens to mitigate the effects of runaway climate change. Now, some governments will invade and raid other nations to acquire resources. That will (will? -- lol -- is) happening.

I think the climate change problem will solve itself the old fashioned way:
-Violence
-Famine
-Disease

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler

No government is going to exact any force on their own citizens to mitigate the effects of runaway climate change.

---

Sure they will. Force is what governments do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Sure they will. Force is what governments do.

---

But I don't think would do it for this kind of thing.

Like, "Okay, populace! Time to force you all to live simply!"

That is a one ingredient recipe for revolt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UltraliteAngler

No government is going to exact any force on their own citizens to mitigate the effects of runaway climate change. Now, some governments will invade and raid other nations to acquire resources. That will (will? -- lol -- is) happening.

I think the climate change problem will solve itself the old fashioned way:
-Violence
-Famine
-Disease

---

Or markets. Or technology. Or some combination thereof.

I don't yet see the need for panic and despair. I certainly don't see a totalitarian solution as viable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

Or markets. Or technology. Or some combination thereof.

I don't yet see the need for panic and despair. I certainly don't see a totalitarian solution as viable.

---

True. The panic and despair will kick in after the inauguration of President Trump...

Quote:

And actually, we’ve had times where the weather wasn’t working out, so they changed it to extreme weather, and they have all different names, you know, so that it fits the bill. But the problem we have, and if you look at our energy costs, and all of the things that we’re doing to solve a problem that I don’t think in any major fashion exists. I mean, Obama thinks it’s the number one problem of the world today. And I think it’s very low on the list. So I am not a believer, and I will, unless somebody can prove something to me, I believe there’s weather. I believe there’s change, and I believe it goes up and it goes down, and it goes up again. And it changes depending on years and centuries, but I am not a believer, and we have much bigger problems.

I may vote Trump just to get to hear him speak for four years. He's kinda like the Yogi Berra of politics. "You can observe a lot by just watching". The ice in the Antarctic is growing, I have observed that. Must be global warming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Sure they will. Force is what governments do.

---

+1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Williamsmith

No need for economic growth.

---

It seems somewhat obvious that if we can start to get away from an economic model based on constant growth a lot of ancillary problems would be self-solving. Any system that requires that kind of growth to survive is, by nature, unsustainable and will reach a tipping point because it will run out of resources. Healthy systems find an equilibrium. Maybe we should, too.

Side note: there are very efficient and sustainable ways to heat with wood. Just not in deserts and not with open fires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Williamsmith

The ice in the Antarctic is growing, I have observed that. Must be global warming.

---

A controversial topic that has conflicting conclusions. I think both sides are fairly discussed here.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...41446754571422

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Sure they will. Force is what governments do.

---

Maybe what Ultralite meant was that our government won't force our citizens to mitigate the effects of runway climate change. After all, the party that has a majority of both houses doesn't think climate change is a concern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

Maybe what Ultralite meant was that our government won't force our citizens to mitigate the effects of runway climate change. After all, the party that has a majority of both houses doesn't think climate change is a concern.

---

What Congress may or may not believe is not relevant in issues such as this. Our government is now predominately regulatory, the EPA need only proclaim a standard based entirely on whatever goal they wish to enforce and then use the power of the government to police their desires. This ultimately leads to governmental force against anyone who cannot or will not voluntarily comply.

Quote:

---

But I don't think would do it for this kind of thing.

Like, "Okay, populace! Time to force you all to live simply!"

That is a one ingredient recipe for revolt.

---

they probably won't do it because they are owned by the money that buys them. It's really pretty simple. Now I could be wrong and they could decide climate change is such an existential threat that none of that short term corruption matters, but I won't hold my breath. Being bought by the highest bidder is what our government does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

What Congress may or may not believe is not relevant in issues such as this. Our government is now predominately regulatory, the EPA need only proclaim a standard based entirely on whatever goal they wish to enforce and then use the power of the government to police their desires. This ultimately leads to governmental force against anyone who cannot or will not voluntarily comply.

---

Then how do you explain the dismal lack of enforcement of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts?