Global Warming to Climate change to Climate Catastrophe.

[rousseau]

^^^^ that

Capitalism isn't a social construct, it's what happens when communities of people attempt to survive among each other. You can't rid the world of 'capitalism' because ultimate people still need to.. capitalize.

Then we're basically doomed. You're not wrong.

Depends on how you look at it.

To me the illusion is that people are rational, Gods, destined to live forever and conquer the universe. The reality is closer to us being just another species subject to the laws of biology, physics, and movement of time.

But if it makes you feel any better we probably will survive for a very long time, but our environment is going to change a lot in the process.

 

[PyramidHead]

No. As I stated in my next comment:

I never said giving up capitalism is a sufficient condition to keep the planet habitable, but it is surely a necessary condition.

Think of it like this: if you don't stop eating glass, you'll probably die an early death. But even if you do stop eating glass, you could get hit by a bus tomorrow. Is that a reason to keep on eating glass?

You still haven't made a case that capitalism is responsible, only an absurd assertion, or made a case that explains how eliminating capitalism will eliminate the threat.

It's really very simple. The goal of capitalism is the accumulation of capital and profit. It thrives in competition, and when regulated sufficiently produces wealth, comfort, and luxury. In the short-term, some form of capitalism is the best system we have yet devised for progress.

The present goal of making sure the planet is habitable in 2200 is sustainability, not progress. It will only work in an environment of cooperation, not one where each party is looking out for its own interests first. It positively requires big sacrifices in wealth, comfort, and luxury, and must be planned on scales far longer than any market cycle. If the report is to be trusted, probably on a national or international level.

There is no way to reconcile the two and no way to regulate capitalism until it is an unrecognizable shadow of itself, because the problem isn't the regulations but the system itself. It is designed to produce the outcomes that it has, and we have all benefited greatly from it. I love my first-world lifestyle as much as anybody else, and I wouldn't have it without the expansionary, innovative force that is capitalism, so don't think I'm not giving credit where it's due.

But this problem is unique because we cannot harness the power of capitalism to produce innovative solutions when (a) doing so is unlikely to create a large enough profit to justify the long-term investment, and (b) continuing to operate in a profit-driven way while we search for new solutions will itself hasten the problem we are trying to solve. It's just too late now--there was a time when we could talk about painting rooftops white, planting more trees, or waiting for Elon Musk to come up with some carbon-sequestering miracle gadget, but now we can no longer afford to keep attacking this thing with a tool that is at cross-purposes with what we want to use it for.

In other words, socket wrenches are great; I am not anti-socket wrench. We certainly could try using a socket wrench for every conceivable job, and with some ingenuity it might work, but not when there's a ticking time bomb in front of us held together with Philips screws. We can either do everything under the sun with our socket wrench or we can defuse the bomb by switching to a screwdriver. This is a very charitable analogy, because socket wrenches don't cause time bombs in the same way that capital accumulation causes global warming, but the point stands.

 

[skepticalbip]

* * *
You seem to be confusing economic systems with governmental systems. Governmental policy to find "solutions" could even work better under a capitalistic economic system than a centrally controlled economic system (history has shown this is the case). Capitalism drives innovation. The advancement in fields such as solar cells and electric automobiles has advanced because there has been economic incentives such as tax incentives given to capitalistic enterprizes to innovate in those fields. Governmental agencies, on the other hand, tend to be very poor at innovation.

 

[Underseer]

The longer we wait to fix this, the more expensive it will be to fix and the more economic harm climate change will cause.

So of course, those claiming to be "fiscally responsible" are asking that all of humanity wait as long as possible to do anything about this. Because doing something about it now when it would be cheaper to fix would be fiscally irresponsible. Also, listening to scientists causes communofascism (communism and fascism are the same thing according to the political expert I listen to on the radio). [/conservolibertarian]

 

[PyramidHead]

* * *
You seem to be confusing economic systems with governmental systems. Governmental policy to find "solutions" could even work better under a capitalistic economic system than a centrally controlled economic system (history has shown this is the case). Capitalism drives innovation. The advancement in fields such as solar cells and electric automobiles has advanced because there has been economic incentives such as tax incentives given to capitalistic enterprizes to innovate in those fields. Governmental agencies, on the other hand, tend to be very poor at innovation.

I can tentatively agree with all of that. But this situation is different because we no longer have time to innovate; what we have are the tools currently at our disposal, along with the assurance that unless we slow down everything (including the very engines of innovation that we are accustomed to using in situations like these) we won't be able to solve the problem. Tax incentives are simply not going to be enough for the kind of coordinated dismantling of entire industries, re-purposing of beloved cash cows, and general stalling of forward momentum that is absolutely needed to maintain a livable planet for just the NEAR future, never mind centuries from now.

 

[bilby]

Our first world mixed-economy capitalism can easily solve this problem - just impose a tax on fossil fuels that is equal to the full cost of extracting the CO₂ from air and 'fixing' it as a stable chemical form that can be buried. It can go back into the holes that the original fuels came out of.

Use the tax revenue thus raised to do exactly that.

Problem solved. The market will then rebalance to use fossil fuels only when they are the cheapest option under the new taxation regime. That will probably mean burning a LOT less of it - but if it doesn't, that won't matter.

There are perfectly good (indeed, even better) alternatives to burning coal, oil, and gas available right now - the only problem is that because of the fact that the fossil fuel producers and consumers are allowed to externalise a large fraction of their actual total costs, the markets are distorted to favour the use of those artificially cheap options.

Capitalism (with the appropriate and intelligent use of pigouvian taxes) can easily solve this problem.

It's not a technology problem; It's not an economic system problem; It's a purely political problem. People need to vote for some large new taxes to solve a very large and obvious problem. In the late 1940s, people did exactly that, to rebuild Europe, and to create the modern UHC systems and welfare states that make modern Europe a great place to live. Sadly, the fashion since the 1980s has been to shit all over these systems for ideological reasons.

Given that the UK was able to massively hike taxes in order to build her NHS, it seems that it shouldn't be impossible to do the same thing to mitigate the environmental consequences of burning fossil fuels. All that's missing is the will to do it.

Don't hold your breath.

 

[steve_bank]

I listened to an anthropologist on a show. Her research showed initial paradigms early in a civilization lead to success. At some point those paradigms are insufficient to solve increasingly complex problems. Leadership changes but it comes from the same cultural, no net net change. Eventually it fails.

Conservatives think we are in the 18th and early 20th centuries. Expansion was unlimited, resources were unlimited. Pollution not an issue.

It is the political-economic ideology of infinite profit and exploitation of resources for gain.

The Chinese are the biggest consumers of solar panels. I read about a Chinese project developing a solar power transportation system. China can do what we can not do. China works on a series of 5 year plans and got good at executing to plan.

 

[DBT]

We are what we are and our political, social and economic systems are a reflection of that condition. Nothing will change until we change, and we - human nature - will not change until something makes us change.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

We are what we are and our political, social and economic systems are a reflection of that condition. Nothing will change until we change, and we - human nature - will not change until something makes us change.

That's because we're not intelligent enough.

 

[bilby]

We are what we are and our political, social and economic systems are a reflection of that condition. Nothing will change until we change, and we - human nature - will not change until something makes us change.

That's because we're not intelligent enough.

Nor sufficiently well educated.

 

[aupmanyav]

Because we are human and not Gods.

 

[DBT]

We are what we are and our political, social and economic systems are a reflection of that condition. Nothing will change until we change, and we - human nature - will not change until something makes us change.

That's because we're not intelligent enough.

Nor sufficiently well educated.

Sadly, there are some folks who refuse to accept evidence that clearly falsifies their own beliefs. Climate change deniers, political ideologues, beliefs held on faith, etc, each preferring their own version of the World over the actual World.

 

[Bomb#20]

We can either have capitalism or we can have a habitable planet.

The countries that abolished capitalism had such marvelous environmental practices.

Nice picture of some barrels.

It's an infamous Czechoslovakian toxic waste dump. Neat thing about toxic waste in a command economy: no Superfund and no lawsuits hauling the polluter into court, since the polluter is the state and owns the court. It was closed down shortly after the Velvet Revolution. I.e., they put a fence around it with Keep Out signs.

You're not thinking long-term. I never said giving up capitalism is a sufficient condition to keep the planet habitable, but it is surely a necessary condition.

No, you aren't thinking long-term. Retaining capitalism is surely a necessary condition to keep the planet habitable. We are a species with seven billion sets of goals, all of us seeking them at cross-purposes to one another. Capitalism is a mechanism that manages the simultaneous pursuit of all those goals by working out compromises and win-win arrangements. Socialism is a mechanism that replaces the simultaneous pursuit of all those goals with prioritization by political process, cooperative pursuit of high priority goals, and abandonment of pursuit of low priority goals. So it tends to be better than capitalism at achieving any one thing, but worse than capitalism at achieving lots of different things.

Consequently, the question of whether it's giving up capitalism or retaining it that's the necessary condition for keeping the planet habitable turns on another question, a very simple one: will authorities who are handed the political power it will take to abolish private ownership of the means of production prioritize keeping the planet habitable, or will they prioritize something else?

This is not a question we need to speculate about. Abolition of capitalism is an experiment that has been run many times. We already know what anticapitalists prioritize when they are given enough power to confiscate the means of production. They prioritize keeping themselves in power.

 

[PyramidHead]

Nice picture of some barrels.

It's an infamous Czechoslovakian toxic waste dump. Neat thing about toxic waste in a command economy: no Superfund and no lawsuits hauling the polluter into court, since the polluter is the state and owns the court. It was closed down shortly after the Velvet Revolution. I.e., they put a fence around it with Keep Out signs.

You're not thinking long-term. I never said giving up capitalism is a sufficient condition to keep the planet habitable, but it is surely a necessary condition.

No, you aren't thinking long-term. Retaining capitalism is surely a necessary condition to keep the planet habitable. We are a species with seven billion sets of goals, all of us seeking them at cross-purposes to one another. Capitalism is a mechanism that manages the simultaneous pursuit of all those goals by working out compromises and win-win arrangements. Socialism is a mechanism that replaces the simultaneous pursuit of all those goals with prioritization by political process, cooperative pursuit of high priority goals, and abandonment of pursuit of low priority goals. So it tends to be better than capitalism at achieving any one thing, but worse than capitalism at achieving lots of different things.

Consequently, the question of whether it's giving up capitalism or retaining it that's the necessary condition for keeping the planet habitable turns on another question, a very simple one: will authorities who are handed the political power it will take to abolish private ownership of the means of production prioritize keeping the planet habitable, or will they prioritize something else?

This is not a question we need to speculate about. Abolition of capitalism is an experiment that has been run many times. We already know what anticapitalists prioritize when they are given enough power to confiscate the means of production. They prioritize keeping themselves in power.

Look, we can just cut to the chase here and save everybody a lot of pages of us talking past each other. Given what you have typed and I have bolded, is there any scenario, any level of urgency with respect to the threat of climate change, that would justify abandoning low priority goals and cooperating to pursue a single high-priority goal (such as for instance preventing the planet from becoming inhospitable to human life) and thus transitioning to a non-capitalist international economy?

 

[PyramidHead]

For those who are interested, this is a good article about the kind of shift I'm talking about, from a fairly neutral news outlet, that explains why the mechanisms of capitalism are ill-equipped for this challenge:

Why Growth Can’t Be Green

Study after study shows the same thing. Scientists are beginning to realize that there are physical limits to how efficiently we can use resources. Sure, we might be able to produce cars and iPhones and skyscrapers more efficiently, but we can’t produce them out of thin air. We might shift the economy to services such as education and yoga, but even universities and workout studios require material inputs. Once we reach the limits of efficiency, pursuing any degree of economic growth drives resource use back up.

These problems throw the entire concept of green growth into doubt and necessitate some radical rethinking. Remember that each of the three studies used highly optimistic assumptions. We are nowhere near imposing a global carbon tax today, much less one of nearly $600 per metric ton, and resource efficiency is currently getting worse, not better. Yet the studies suggest that even if we do everything right, decoupling economic growth with resource use will remain elusive and our environmental problems will continue to worsen.

In short, the current situation requires us to quickly and voluntarily decide to make fewer things next year than we made this year, and keep following that trend for an indefinite period of time. The driving force behind capitalist innovation is exactly the opposite and can, at best, be attenuated by incentives to something like make slightly fewer things than you originally planned to make next year while still making more things overall. That's not gonna fly anymore. Or, if you think I'm doomsaying and the situation isn't as bad as all the scientists say, well, one day it'll be that bad. Because the minute there is a whiff of "we might have over-estimated the timeline of this threat BUT PLEASE BE CAREFU--" all of the gears of production will wind up again to capitalize (that word again) on this newfound confidence.

The only way to avert that situation is to go for the biggest contributor to the problem: the 100 companies that contribute over 70% of the carbon output in the world today. Predictably, they are mostly oil and gas companies. Coal is a big part of it as well. These industries are neither willing nor can they be convinced through stick-and-carrot policies to do what is needed for the next few generations of human beings to have a livable biosphere. They want to "transition to clean energy", which is corporate marketing-speak for "spend as little as we can possibly spend, based on forecasts of public opinion of our brand." That approach was never good enough, never fast or comprehensive enough, and now it's becoming obvious.

Bear in mind that I'm not saying we can actually fix the problem, even if we do take the first step and deconstruct the global economy down to first principles. Even then, it's nowhere near guaranteed that there will be a positive outcome for us, as the Czechoslovakian example and others in history have shown, though perhaps during times when the gravity of the situation wasn't as appreciated. It could very well be that as humans, we are incapable of doing what is necessary to deal with climate change. But that does not change the fact of what is necessary, which is all I'm pointing out here.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

For those who are interested, this is a good article about the kind of shift I'm talking about, from a fairly neutral news outlet, that explains why the mechanisms of capitalism are ill-equipped for this challenge:

Why Growth Can’t Be Green

Study after study shows the same thing. Scientists are beginning to realize that there are physical limits to how efficiently we can use resources. Sure, we might be able to produce cars and iPhones and skyscrapers more efficiently, but we can’t produce them out of thin air. We might shift the economy to services such as education and yoga, but even universities and workout studios require material inputs. Once we reach the limits of efficiency, pursuing any degree of economic growth drives resource use back up.

These problems throw the entire concept of green growth into doubt and necessitate some radical rethinking. Remember that each of the three studies used highly optimistic assumptions. We are nowhere near imposing a global carbon tax today, much less one of nearly $600 per metric ton, and resource efficiency is currently getting worse, not better. Yet the studies suggest that even if we do everything right, decoupling economic growth with resource use will remain elusive and our environmental problems will continue to worsen.

In short, the current situation requires us to quickly and voluntarily decide to make fewer things next year than we made this year, and keep following that trend for an indefinite period of time. The driving force behind capitalist innovation is exactly the opposite and can, at best, be attenuated by incentives to something like make slightly fewer things than you originally planned to make next year while still making more things overall. That's not gonna fly anymore. Or, if you think I'm doomsaying and the situation isn't as bad as all the scientists say, well, one day it'll be that bad. Because the minute there is a whiff of "we might have over-estimated the timeline of this threat BUT PLEASE BE CAREFU--" all of the gears of production will wind up again to capitalize (that word again) on this newfound confidence.

The only way to avert that situation is to go for the biggest contributor to the problem: the 100 companies that contribute over 70% of the carbon output in the world today. Predictably, they are mostly oil and gas companies. Coal is a big part of it as well. These industries are neither willing nor can they be convinced through stick-and-carrot policies to do what is needed for the next few generations of human beings to have a livable biosphere. They want to "transition to clean energy", which is corporate marketing-speak for "spend as little as we can possibly spend, based on forecasts of public opinion of our brand." That approach was never good enough, never fast or comprehensive enough, and now it's becoming obvious.

Bear in mind that I'm not saying we can actually fix the problem, even if we do take the first step and deconstruct the global economy down to first principles. Even then, it's nowhere near guaranteed that there will be a positive outcome for us, as the Czechoslovakian example and others in history have shown, though perhaps during times when the gravity of the situation wasn't as appreciated. It could very well be that as humans, we are incapable of doing what is necessary to deal with climate change. But that does not change the fact of what is necessary, which is all I'm pointing out here.

Humans cannot fix something like this anymore than ancient bacteria polluting the atmosphere with oxygen could fix anything. What will inevitably occur is more conflict between humans competing for dwindling resources. Humanity will not become extinct by any stretch and there will be places on the planet where humans can still live and possibly even thrive.

It's not unusual that we cannot see the sense in limiting our own population, but in fact has there ever been a species that constrained itself instead of being constrained by the environment? No. Humans will take the same path.

 

[PyramidHead]

Humans cannot fix something like this anymore than ancient bacteria polluting the atmosphere with oxygen could fix anything. What will inevitably occur is more conflict between humans competing for dwindling resources. Humanity will not become extinct by any stretch and there will be places on the planet where humans can still live and possibly even thrive.

It's not unusual that we cannot see the sense in limiting our own population, but in fact has there ever been a species that constrained itself instead of being constrained by the environment? No. Humans will take the same path.

That kind of defeatism is very attractive from a social and psychological standpoint. It makes you sound smart when you say it, because the kinds of people who make sweeping judgments about humanity are usually smart. It absolves you of any responsibility to change things, because hey, we're all dust in the wind anyway. It puts the problem at a safe distance where it can be contemplated with a sigh as just another one of humanity's foibles. It also tarnishes the necessary course of action with the stain of something unnatural and unprecedented in biological history, when of course humans have productively--and proactively--responded to environmental constraints plenty of times in the past, though never at this scale. I'm not talking about you specifically, more of an impersonal "you", which of course includes me at times, pessimist that I am. But simultaneously, this idea of human nature as some kind of unstoppable train is only true until we snap out of telling ourselves that it's true.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Humans cannot fix something like this anymore than ancient bacteria polluting the atmosphere with oxygen could fix anything. What will inevitably occur is more conflict between humans competing for dwindling resources. Humanity will not become extinct by any stretch and there will be places on the planet where humans can still live and possibly even thrive.

It's not unusual that we cannot see the sense in limiting our own population, but in fact has there ever been a species that constrained itself instead of being constrained by the environment? No. Humans will take the same path.

That kind of defeatism is very attractive from a social and psychological standpoint. It makes you sound smart when you say it, because the kinds of people who make sweeping judgments about humanity are usually smart. It absolves you of any responsibility to change things, because hey, we're all dust in the wind anyway. It puts the problem at a safe distance where it can be contemplated with a sigh as just another one of humanity's foibles. It also tarnishes the necessary course of action with the stain of something unnatural and unprecedented in biological history, when of course humans have productively--and proactively--responded to environmental constraints plenty of times in the past, though never at this scale. I'm not talking about you specifically, more of an impersonal "you", which of course includes me at times, pessimist that I am. But simultaneously, this idea of human nature as some kind of unstoppable train is only true until we snap out of telling ourselves that it's true.

And that is a wonderful sentiment. Unfortunately, and perhaps sadly there is nothing in the human past that would point to our being able to proactively come together as a species and control our global fate, the important distinction being global. I for one certainly used to care much more but my fellow human beings - as a whole - do not, and that includes yours truly. The will is certainly not there and never has been on a large enough scale to do something like this. Only environmental events will change anything.

 

[rousseau]

Humans cannot fix something like this anymore than ancient bacteria polluting the atmosphere with oxygen could fix anything. What will inevitably occur is more conflict between humans competing for dwindling resources. Humanity will not become extinct by any stretch and there will be places on the planet where humans can still live and possibly even thrive.

It's not unusual that we cannot see the sense in limiting our own population, but in fact has there ever been a species that constrained itself instead of being constrained by the environment? No. Humans will take the same path.

That kind of defeatism is very attractive from a social and psychological standpoint. It makes you sound smart when you say it, because the kinds of people who make sweeping judgments about humanity are usually smart. It absolves you of any responsibility to change things, because hey, we're all dust in the wind anyway. It puts the problem at a safe distance where it can be contemplated with a sigh as just another one of humanity's foibles. It also tarnishes the necessary course of action with the stain of something unnatural and unprecedented in biological history, when of course humans have productively--and proactively--responded to environmental constraints plenty of times in the past, though never at this scale. I'm not talking about you specifically, more of an impersonal "you", which of course includes me at times, pessimist that I am. But simultaneously, this idea of human nature as some kind of unstoppable train is only true until we snap out of telling ourselves that it's true.

I'll preface this post with the fact that I admire your approach, but doesn't this kind of statement fall into the very same vein as mentioned prior in your post? Saying we can just 'flick a switch' sounds smart, but it doesn't offer anything substantive other than some kind of psychological optimism.

The hard problem with global warming is political. Lots of academics sitting in their ivory towers, far from the average hum of humanity, will make claims about carbon taxes, policy, and other things, but the hard problem is implementing that policy. Essentially what we're asking is that hundreds of millions, if not billions of people start acting in ways that are completely contrary to their own nature. To give up their comforts, their wealth, and so on, so we can only maybe do something about global warming. And roughly 50% of those people already consciously don't give a shit about doing anything, including people in political posts.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but that's the hard problem.

 

[PyramidHead]

Humans cannot fix something like this anymore than ancient bacteria polluting the atmosphere with oxygen could fix anything. What will inevitably occur is more conflict between humans competing for dwindling resources. Humanity will not become extinct by any stretch and there will be places on the planet where humans can still live and possibly even thrive.

It's not unusual that we cannot see the sense in limiting our own population, but in fact has there ever been a species that constrained itself instead of being constrained by the environment? No. Humans will take the same path.

That kind of defeatism is very attractive from a social and psychological standpoint. It makes you sound smart when you say it, because the kinds of people who make sweeping judgments about humanity are usually smart. It absolves you of any responsibility to change things, because hey, we're all dust in the wind anyway. It puts the problem at a safe distance where it can be contemplated with a sigh as just another one of humanity's foibles. It also tarnishes the necessary course of action with the stain of something unnatural and unprecedented in biological history, when of course humans have productively--and proactively--responded to environmental constraints plenty of times in the past, though never at this scale. I'm not talking about you specifically, more of an impersonal "you", which of course includes me at times, pessimist that I am. But simultaneously, this idea of human nature as some kind of unstoppable train is only true until we snap out of telling ourselves that it's true.

I'll preface this post with the fact that I admire your approach, but doesn't this kind of statement fall into the very same vein as mentioned prior in your post? Saying we can just 'flick a switch' sounds smart, but it doesn't offer anything substantive other than some kind of psychological optimism.

The hard problem with global warming is political. Lots of academics sitting in their ivory towers, far from the average hum of humanity, will make claims about carbon taxes, policy, and other things, but the hard problem is implementing that policy. Essentially what we're asking is that hundreds of millions, if not billions of people start acting in ways that are completely contrary to their own nature. To give up their comforts, their wealth, and so on, so we can only maybe do something about global warming. And roughly 50% of those people already consciously don't give a shit about doing anything, including people in political posts.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but that's the hard problem.

It's a hard problem for sure. But consider this: rather than asking a small number of rich people to do what needs to be done and hoping they find it in their hearts to make the sacrifice, it might become necessary to take the choice out of their hands entirely. The human nature of the wealthy minority to look after their assets can be countered and vastly outnumbered by the human nature of the poor and middle class who will soon be left without homes, infrastructure, clean water, food, and a future for their children. Things could get pretty ugly, and most likely it would be too late, so it wouldn't amount to anything in the end. If we did that now, and just decided to take the reins from the executive managers and political types... well, that would be ugly too, and wouldn't have a much better shot at amounting to anything. We are probably stuck, it's true. Yet, I think it's still worth holding people's feet to the fire about this, not only to soften the inevitable blow but also in the name of basic sanity.