Let’s Take This to a Higher Level


O

ne of the frustrating thing about Bacon’s Rebellion is how quickly important discussions decompose to the usual dogmatic lines of the AEI or Cato Institute or what Glenn Beck or some other conservative radio jokey just said.

A case in point is global warming.
This red flag issue immediately draws skeptics who claim it is not a problem or that it is a fraud proven by some nefarious and obscure emails among scientists involving East Anglia University. I have yet to see the emails and the supposed evidence of fraud (Groveton, I am still waiting).
Or if you talk about how not all of Corporate America believes that carbon capping is a superfluous expense demanded by Greeniacs and note that some top CEOs see the need for restricting carbon dioxide, dear ‘ole Jim Bacon trots out his latest, favorite wonk word and paints them as “rent seeking.”
This is a short post and I’ll get to it. I want to share with you two things.
First, in The New York Review of Books, is a speech by Paul Volcker, the guy who pounded the silver nail into the heart of inflation back in the 1980s when he was Fed chief. He writes:
“Restoring our fiscal position, dealing with Social Security and health care obligations in a responsible way, sorting out a reasonable approach toward limiting carbon emissions, and producing domestic energy without unacceptable environmental risks all take time. We’d better get started. That will require a greater sense of common purpose and political consensus than has been evident in Washington or the country at large”
Or take this Bloomberg Businessweek profile of James E. Rogers, CEO of utility Duke Energy:
“We’re the third-largest emitter of CO2 among corporations in American because we generate 70 percent of our electricity at 20-coal-fired plants.”
My point is that BR needs to raise the level of debate to what these guys are saying. We can’t be Sarah Palin-ing each other with East Anglia, which hasn’t changed global scientific consensus about the dangers of global warming one iota. And we need to get beyond the political antics of Ken “the Cooch” Cuccinelli is obviously plays in a lesser league than the likes of the two men I have quoted.
The politics of division are the result of the new “Party of No” — the GOP which seems intent on smashing everything to wing a comeback in Congress this fall. The other divisions are the hard right and the Tea Baggers who somehow can’t get over the idea that an African-American is president. And when they complain about the “gov’mint” taking over private industry, they neatly forget that the companies ASKED to be taken over and that it was a REPUBLICAN, George. W. Bush, who did it. They also don’t understand that in most advanced countries, temporary government bailouts or takeovers do occur, are necessary and are temporary.
Too bad, my message will fall on deaf ears. Let the rent-seeking begin!
Peter Galuszka

Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

17 responses to “Let’s Take This to a Higher Level”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Peter – I've posted a number of times that I don't know what to believe about global warming, but fear that, even if true, it will quickly become yet one more scheme to screw the general public and make money through manipulation, rather than by providing quality products and services.

    Duke Energy – dollars to donuts that the CEO has commissioned a plan to increase Duke's bottom line through carbon credit trading that he's been spending more time than figuring out how to generate more energy with less carbon.

    Colleges & universities. Trying to save the world or busily looking for more funding? We now live an age of virtual reality. Say the right words and they become reality. Society is large enough for a mass to repeat the "sacred words" to drive policy to help foster someone else's get rich quick scheme.

    My "friends" at Tysons Corner in an effort to get approval for massive density in order to flip properties at huge profits chanted "carbon neutral." Those who worship at the throne of global warming started chanting the same. The landowners were drooling.

    Meanwhile, they designed a plan for a grid of streets that VDOT found to increase traffic congestion and guess what — carbon emissions. They lobbied to move as much workforce and affordable housing away from the four rail stations as possible. That would result in more autos and more carbon emissions. Further, we ignore areas of environmental improvement where there is no political/scientific disagreement — storm water management. So we will make the Chesapeake Bay worse all in the name of preventing global warming.

    TMT

    P.S. The only person I know at AEI is Norm Ornstein, and he's no tea-bagger!

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You make a number of good points Mr. Gooze.

    So far no one has shown that the wise-guy content of EAU Emails makes a whit of difference except to those who have naive views of reality — per Professor Risse's last post.

    What do you think the role of Enterprise Media, Institutional Media or 'the journalism profession' should be on this issue?

    Enterprise Media has everything to lose by providing citizens with fair and balanced information.

    Institutional Media, supported on the one hand by right of center interests and on the other by foundations funded by the first families of Journalism (Capital J) seems to be just as divided on this topic as the others you mention.

    Observer

  3. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Observer,
    Re: The two Medias, I constantly get the idea that the "enterprise" model is really nothing new , save for the electroic immediacy. Go back to the 18th and 19th centuries and journals were highly opinionated. Follow the trend into th early 20th century and you have distinctive points of view, i.e. the Chicago Tribine or Luce's Time magazine in its center-right, poison-dart style.
    As afternoon dailies folded and the three tv networks emerged, there actually was a trend towards comformity that got misconstrued as being 'unbiased." But that was based on very few outlets controlling the national market. Now, the market is highly fragmented and we're back t the past. I'm not sure that "enterprise" or "institution" are really that relevant as I see them somehow merging.

    PG

  4. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

    The NOAA graph of continuos CO2 concentration in the atmosphere snce 1960 ought to convince anyone that we cannot dig up millons of tons of Carbon and emit it into the air without changing the atmosphere (increasing CO2).

    That part is a done deal, as far as I am concerned.

    The next question is whether this increas in CO2 has any damaging efects. That is a little harder to prove because some aspects of the CO2 cycle will speed up with increasing CO2 concentration, and therefore use more CO2.

    Again, the graph pretty well indicates that despite that feature CO2 is still rising. That cannot happen without some consequences.

    Nothing in ehe email scandal changes those facts.

    That said, i do not beleive we can reduce combustion by 60 to 80% without consequences. A reasonable approach to reducing carbon emissions and producing domestic energy without unacceptable environmental risks is going to be an exceedingly difficult task.

    It is going to be made more difficult by those who will fight against the alternative environmental risks that producing power by means other than combustion will create.

    RG

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    One of RH’s best posts ever.

    (Assuming the heading “rh said” and the signature “RG” are really the same person.

    All RH needs to do now is to get his head around the ways to cut carbon emissions by 60 to 80 percent without destroying the quality of life for most in what Dr. Risse calls ‘the Ziggurat.”

    They exist and I understand Risse is working on several ‘Current Perspectives’ that will site more examples and sources of information beyond his own research.

    Mr. Gooze:

    Sorry you misunderstood the question : > (.

    There is a profound difference between Enterprise Media (formerly ‘MainStream Media’) and Institutional Media.

    Enterprise Media is owned by Enterprises (Organization that are established to make money for owners / stockholders) e.g. the big three TV networks, Fox, Wall Street Journal, Wash Post, RTD, etc.

    Institutional Media is owned by Organizations established to meet objectives other than governance (Agencies), profit (Enterprises) and Households (economic, social and physical well being of the occupants).

    Institutions include churches, universities, unions, social clubs, think tanks and of course foundations.

    Institutional Media includes outlets like Miller-McCune and others supported by foundations (Institutions) and journalism schools that are often funded by the first families of the Old Fourth Estate.

    Your thoughts now?

    Observer

  6. All RH needs to do now is to get his head around the ways to cut carbon emissions by 60 to 80 percent without destroying the quality of life for most…

    Thank you, but it is the same message Ihave been consistently sending.

    Reducing Carbon emissions by 60 to 80 percent is going to have other repercusions, other externalities.

    We need to be prepared to assess them with the same caustic eye that we consider emissions from power plants or automobiles.

    I believe the exernalities will be larger than anyone thinks right now, which Larry points out has been our consistent history. I believe they could be so large as to lead to war.

    The idea that "means exist" ignores the price of paying for them. It is an example of the idea that tchnology and policy can overcome the laws of physics and economics.

    Somehow, I don't think so.

    RH

  7. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    "My point is that BR needs to raise the level of debate to what these guys are saying.".

    "The other divisions are the hard right and the Tea Baggers who somehow can't get over the idea that an African-American is president.".

    What was that about raising the level of debate?

  8. In “The Idea of Decline in Western History,” after surveying predictions from the mid-19th century until today, the historian Arthur Herman identifies two consistently dominant schools of thought.

    The first school despairs because it foresees inevitable ruin. The second school is hopeful — but only because these intellectuals foresee ruin, too, and can hardly wait for the decadent modern world to be replaced by one more to their liking.

    Every now and then, someone comes along to note that society has failed to collapse and might go on prospering, but the notion is promptly dismissed in academia as happy talk from a simpleton.

    New York Times

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/science/18tier.html?scp=1&sq=%22matt%20ridley%22&st=cse

  9. Hydra Avatar

    "What was that about raising the level of debate?"

    I just heard on the radio about a study that was performed.

    In the study they Sent out two poll surveys whcih started out with the headings "Do yo agree with the following Republican posiions?" or Do you agree withthe following Democratic positions."

    They tabulated the poll and sent it our again to another group of people, but this time with the headings reversed.

    They got nearly identical results.

    This is very scary.

    RH

  10. Mimi Stratton Avatar
    Mimi Stratton

    When in 2004 the Pentagon expressed its concern about abrupt climate change and commissioned a publicly-funded "secret" report (http://www.gbn.com/articles/pdfs/Abrupt%20Climate%20Change%20February%202004.pdf), and then Forbes Magazine, no less, released the findings, I got interested.

    Now I find the "are humans contributing to this problem or not" arguments fairly irrelevant. It's happening, and it makes sense to me that we mitigate the cause as much as we can.

  11. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Observer,
    I see what you mean abhout institutions but other than delivering informed aergument ina niche field, I don't see them as bnig players in today's rough and tumble fields. I'm thinking more in terms of bloggers who may or may not have their facts right and who may or may not be convincing. The old journalist in me recognizes that rigorous vetting and editing only raises the level of the product and the debate and I sure went through the mill when I spent 18 years with a New York based media firm. But at the end of the day, the tone and thought line of the stories tended to reflect what the peons THOUGHT the editor in chief wanted or whether a particularly outspoken senior editor shouted his views in. I rememeber one guy who hardly got beyond Avenue N in Brooklyn but you could spot his world view in so many stories.
    At the end of the day, I think bloggiong is good, respite its flaws. Unfortunaly I now ive in the Richmond area where the dominant local paper so embraces the views of the loal ruling business class that it makes Pravda look sophisticated and I used to read Pravda.
    According to your definitions, where do bloggers fit?
    Peter Galuszka

  12. Now I find the "are humans contributing to this problem or not" arguments fairly irrelevant.

    Suppose we are not contributing to it (unlikely).

    What makes you think that humans are capable of reversing a global natural change?

    Suppose we ARE contributing to it.

    In order to ameliorate the problem we either have to reverse some natural global activity, or unwind most of our own contribution to the problem.

    Which takes you right back to the original Question:

    What makes you think that humans are capable of reversing a global natural processs?

    Plus the additional question:

    What makes you think that humans are capable of reversing their own combustion based processes without unraveling much of their society?

    I don;t see the human vs natural arguent as irrelevant so much as unsettling.

    It makes sense to me (too) that we mitigate the cause as much as we can.

    It is the "as much as we can" part that concerns me.

    RH

  13. Mimi Stratton Avatar
    Mimi Stratton

    Mitigate. I didn't say reverse.
    I just don't want to be part of a species that saw what was happening and didn't try to do something to at least slow the process down.

    As for the "unraveling of society" if what you mean is that we all stop worshipping at the altar of money quite as much as we currently do, that would be a plus. So society would change. Well, maybe it needs to change.

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Mr. Gooze asks an interesting question related to Enterprise Media, Institutional Media and the New Fourth Estate that does not yet have a Citizen Media:

    What is the role of the Bloggesphere?

    I think that Dr. Risse has a good description:

    Bloggers – singlely and in groups – are akin to vigilantes and Robin Hood. Further, as in the days of the Plummer Gang in Virginia City, it is hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys.

    Some are living off the scraps that fall off Enterprise tables (including Enterprise Media).

    Some are dreaming of a return of the Old Fourth Estate.

    Some are supported by the foundations and largess of the First Families of Journalism.

    Some are trained in and believe in the craft and profession (two separate things) of Journalism (capital ‘J’).

    Some just love poking sticks in folks eyes of those who hold a different view in hopes the Myths supported by ‘naive reality’ will get them through the day.

    Some are ‘doing their own thing’ because they think it is right.

    All are living off the unsustainable surplus generated by the Business-As-Usual in a society driven by Mass OverConsumption.

    As Professor Risse points out in THE ESTATES MATRIX, until there is an understanding of the existence of the New Fourth Estate and the rise of a Citizen Media, Bloggers – especially those who know and understand the craft and profession of Journalism (they are different) will be adrift and often mistaken for bad guys.

    Observer

  15. Money matters.

    Life expectancy is more than 20 years longer (79.12 year) in countries with the most economic freedom (Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Chile, Switzerland, U.S.) than the life expectancy (59.4 years) in those countries with the least economic freedom (Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Angola, Chad, Congo), according to the Economic Freedom of the World 2009 Report from Cato.

    I don't see how you promote less consumption without

    a) controlling the economy in some way

    and

    b)slowing or reducing the value of the economy.

    You need a good economy in order to pay for a good environment. A good environment, along with all the other things money buys promote longer and healthier lives.

    I believe that promoting a lesser eonomy is tantamount to killing people off, at some level, and we had best be prepared to decide wo that is.

    RH

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Good to see RH has toned down his snide, abusive remarks.

    Hopefully someone conversant with transport will take on his comments on the Todd Litman post.

    We will briefly examine his comments above:

    “Money matters.”

    Of course it does, in many ways.

    “Life expectancy is more than 20 years longer (79.12 year) in countries with the most economic freedom (Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Chile, Switzerland, U.S.) than the life expectancy (59.4 years) in those countries with the least economic freedom (Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Angola, Chad, Congo), according to the Economic Freedom of the World 2009 Report from Cato”

    RH loves to point out logical fallacies and a huge one lies behind this statement – I am sure he has a name for it. You might guess that the data reflects a bias, given the source.

    There are millions of parameters that have changed dramatically in the past 225 years.

    One can cherry pick to find ones that prove that economic growth has a good impact on the trajectory of civilization (Friedman) and that economic growth has a bad impact (McKibben, Florida and Reich to cite three often noted on this Blog.

    The base argument for Cato, the Club of Growth and all of Business-As-Usual acolytes is summarized in B. Friedman’s “The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth.” Friedman’s illogic is dismantled in B. McKibben’s “Deep Economy.” McKibben was not the first. The case was made very clear by Daly, Schumacher and others in the 60s and 70s.

    The Growth Grasshoppers have been feasting on the unsustainable surplus that results from burning through Natural Capital.

    On a finite planet continued geometric consumption of resources in a dead end, PERIOD.

    The bottom line concerning the impact of the last 225 years of ‘progress’ is that more humans (and higher percentage of humans) are in poverty vis a vis those at the top of the economic food chain than at any time since just before the Black Death.

    Reich has documented that even in fortunate regions, most of the citizens are falling farther and farther behind. In the US lower 50 percent have been falling farther and farther behind since the 70s and now it is the lower 95 percent.

    Do we need to point out that that benefit most from Business-As-Usual are at top of Ziggurat and fund Institutions like Cato?

    Another issue is that the things used to measure ‘progress’ are not contributing to ‘happiness’ even to those at the top of the Ziggurat beyond “I would rather be rich than poor.”

    I would recommend Risse’s NEW METRIC CITIZEN WELL BEING on this topic. I just read a draft of his Perspective “DeGrowth: Shrink to Survive THEN Prosper” which will put this in more comprehensive context.

    Observer

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Back to RH:

    “I don't see how you promote less consumption without

    “a) controlling the economy in some way, and

    The way to ‘control’ the economy is enlightened self-interest and a fair allocation of ALL costs – to create an informed, intelligent economy. Contemporary information technology and wide spread literacy make possible vis a vis intelligence in the market and in the voting booth what was beyond the imagination in the day of Adam Smith and Tom Jefferson.

    “b)slowing or reducing the value of the economy.”

    That plus redefining what is ‘value’ to reflect what humans really need when they can intelligently weigh the alternatives and come to a well considered public judgement – aka, informed democracy.

    “You need a good economy in order to pay for a good environment.”

    But citizens and their Organizations must start by not doing harm to the environment without fairly allocating the costs and consequences.

    “A good environment, along with all the other things money buys promote longer and healthier lives.”

    With an enlightened market, yes.

    Under current conditions, not so much.

    “I believe that promoting a lesser economy is tantamount to killing people off, at some level, and we had best be prepared to decide who that is.”

    This is the frightening message of Business-As-Usual and those who, as Prof. Risse says, “want to ride the Tiger for one more round.”

    In effect what RH has said over and over is “lets keep doing what we are doing because I can cash out, to hell with future generations. And besides when the Sun implodes we will all be toast anyway.”

    The problem is that on the current trajectory billions will suffer needlessly in coming decades – starvation, war, disease, etc. and the Sun will not be imploding for a few billion years.

    Even if an asteroid hits tomorrow, it would be nice going out knowing humans did the best they could.

    Observer

Leave a Reply