Frequently, when a small, incremental measure to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions is proposed, environmental commentators argue that it should be rejected. Why? Because it is a "distraction," a way of enabling us to continue our horrid, depraved lifestyle, methadone for our addiction to iniquity, a sop to our corporate overlords, mere playing of games, a highly Unserious Frivolity, etc. etc. Instead, we should choose the Magical Pony Plan for a Totally and Awesomely Transformed World. That, after all, is the only real solution.
Here's a thought for such folks: unless you also describe practical steps for how we can achieve your Magical Pony Plan -- beyond merely rejecting everything that isn't your Magical Pony Plan -- then you are not, in fact, arguing on behalf of the Magical Pony Plan. You are arguing that we should reject the incremental advance in favor of doing nothing.
Addendum: if, in the course of arguing that we should reject an incremental advance in favor of a Magical Pony Plan doing nothing, you adopt a tone of impatient moral superiority, you get extra demerits.
Ask Umbra on bike helmets
Ask Umbra on buying carbon offsets
Comments
View as Threaded
amc89 Posted 4:31 am
31 Jul 2007
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 4:58 am
31 Jul 2007
Permalink
JMG Posted 5:30 am
31 Jul 2007
Frequently, when a small, incremental measure to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions is proposed, environmental commentators argue that it should be rejected.
I think the effect you're complaining about is this: Measure X appears and is touted as a solution. Turns out that measure X is not an actual reduction measure at all, but only the greenhouse gas equivalent of a "Congressional Budget Cut." A Congressional Budget Cut is no cut at all, only an increase of less than the previously assumed amount.
[In DC, few budgets are actually cut, and then only for things like trains and renewable energy. Most budget "cuts" are merely reductions in the rate of growth. No actual reduction, only an apparent reduction when compared to some previously assumed rate of growth.]
Applied to the climate crisis, you begin to understand why people can have such radically different views about the utility of measures X, Y, and Z.
Few things are on offer that actually reduce emissions, because they all boil down to using less energy and materials, and doing so (where possible) while maintaining the utility that the energy and materials provide is hard, hard work.
But it's EASY (and profitable) to create things that are slightly less wasteful than all the things we've become accustomed to that were invented during an era when we believed that we could have infinite growth in a finite biosphere, and that there was essentially no limit to the earth's capacity to absorb our wastes. So you can easily conjure up goods and services that provide an apparent reduction that is really no reduction at all.
If we follow your argument and support measures that have this kind of apparent reduction potential, we should all be lining up to support corn ethanol from distilleries powered with natural gas, hybrid Ford SUVs, Boeing Dreamliners, "Intelligent Highways," and the whole panoply of other wondertoys that we can amuse ourselves with in the name of reducing emissions while overlooking that overall emissions merrily continue to increase at an increasing rate.
When thinking about the climate crisis, all our fascination with complexity is merely our attempt to avoid the hard simplicity of the thing: we have to learn to make do with less -- and eventually LOTS LESS -- of everything that we have come to think of as "Standard of Living" (actually a Madison Ave. term that really translates into "rate of consumption").
Anything that offers REAL reductions merits further investigation and support.
Things that offer only phony apparent reductions merit skepticism, particularly when the most powerful result of the technology is to maintain the infrastructure that has created the problem in the first place and that divert resources away from addressing that root problem (see, e.g., corn ethanol, hybrid cars).
As many smarter than I have noted, survival is optional.
There is absolutely nothing saying that we will get this right or that we will be able to restrain our drive for immediate gratification in order to limit our appetites and leave something for future generations. But while it must be admitted that a soft transition to sustainability (i.e., without massive dieoff) is not guaranteed to us at all, it must also be admitted that, if we are to make it through without massive dieoff, we can no longer accept phony apparent reductions in place of real ones.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:04 am
31 Jul 2007
I suggest presenting ADDITIONAL clear examples of where incremental measures have actually worked (not just proposed stuff), clear examples of technology solving problems without creating more problems (not just suggestions), and clear examples of maintaining a desired quality of life AND repairing the natural environment (not futuristic dreams).
I'm not accusing you of not doing this already. I just think you're going to have to really hammer away at it.
Forward!
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 6:32 am
31 Jul 2007
Here's an example of an "incremental measure" and a "technology-solving problem": the acid rain rules under the 1990 Clean Air Act.
The regulations that EPA wrote under the 1990 legislation put in place tradeable permits for sulfur dioxide under a cap, applied to coal-fired power plants with continuous emission monitors.
Many environmental groups derided emission trading at the time. The "magical pony plan" that they wanted was mandatory controls on power plants, which just wasn't going to happen. Much of the environmental community said that the Environmental Defense Fund was selling out by pushing a tradeable permits plan instead.
But the compromise worked. How much do you hear about acid rain now, compared to 20 years ago? (...or were most of you in grade school back then and you don't remember? :-) ).
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 9:59 am
31 Jul 2007
I think there are two different versions here. If you are talking carbon tax, auctioned permit, or carbon trading in the U.S. you can advocate for the ones you think will work and opppose the ones you think will fail. Cause none of them are in place right now. On the other hand if you condemn moderately efficient cars because they aren't as good as we can do - that is silly. Because you can't buy 200 mpg gallon cars right now, but you can buy Prius's and various small cars that are as efficient as a Prius, some diesels that may be more efficient. And if you have to drive long distances, and can't afford a $80,000 Telsa (which won't be delivered until 2008) that really is the best you as an individual can do.
So it makes sense to support getting better trains, and better and electric cars and hyper-PHEVS and so son, but still be aware that you can't get those now and that the incremental improvements is all a lot of people can do right now.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:17 pm
31 Jul 2007
http://greyfalcon.net/lcarough7.png
_
Even if you assume the best numbers for corn ethanol, diesel is still comprable or better.
Permalink
tico89 Posted 1:33 pm
31 Jul 2007
"Don't bother switching off the light when you leave the room, it won't do any good in the long run, what we need is a magical plan to kill off all use of lights..."
And
"Yeeha!! I switch off the light when I leave the room! I'm single-handedly stopping global warming!!"
Surely that can't be too difficult to achieve.
If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:03 pm
31 Jul 2007
http://greyfalcon.net/electriccars3.png
And considering we're giving about $500 per year to subsidize a car to run on Ethanol.
http://greyfalcon.net/biotaxes.png
Wouldn't we be better off promoting more effecient cars rather than fuels that are supposidly green.
___
But then again, there's all these lofty promises about cellulosic ethanol, that it will solve all our problems.
Even though cellulose ethanol is currently in worse shape than corn ethanol.
Permalink
Rune Posted 2:27 pm
31 Jul 2007
Meanwhile, the actual number of trades and the prices fetched for SO2 abatement within the U.S. was rather paltry. I am not convinced that the trading scheme is the big success it is often made out to be, especially when taking a global perspective on the matter. And, as Gar notes, taking the bull by the horns has been shown to be a more sure and effective means of effecting local change--at least in countries that have the backbone to insist on it even if it means businesses will have to pay the true cost of cleaning up their own environment instead of paying for low hanging fruit in a far away orchard of abatement opportunities. There is not much magic in that act if you ask me.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 11:15 pm
31 Jul 2007
Greenmom, I don't think the acid rain parallel fits the bill - that would be the cap-and-trade vs carbon tax debate, neither of which could be meaningfully described as small incremental measures. The argument there is about relative effectiveness, not about "distractions".
JMG, I think you hit the mark. I believe what David has in his sights are the folks who question whether baby step incremental solutions have any benefit at all, and ask if they may indeed have major disbenefits such as distraction and a false feeling of, well, Mission Accomplished. "Toyota sold 7,000 Priuses last year - we must be winning the global climate change war!" "Voluntary carbon offset sales hit $80 million last year - - we must be winning the global climate change war!" In governance circles, these kinds of phony reportings are known as "wingflaps" - measures of actions taken rather than objectives realised (picture a flock of geese heading south for the winter - are they really getting closer to Florida or have they been flying round in circles?).
So back to the straw man. I guess David's tilting at those of us who ask whether "every little bit helps" makes for sound environmental advice. Those who don't believe a barrage of beach umbrellas will shelter us from the approaching tsunami and think we'd better stop messing around and think of something better. Fast.
Guilty as charged.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:26 am
01 Aug 2007
the film An Inconvenient Truth has allegedly led to a "tipping point" in public consciousness about global climate change ("Tipping Point" having been a best-selling book). We learn in the movie that hundreds of millions of people may have to flee for higher ground from swelling seas, other hundreds of millions may be displaced by drought and famine, whole communities may be wrecked and untold species eliminated. And what is the goal of the organization that the producer of the movie has established?
Convince people to buy compact fluorescent light bulbs.
C'mon Dave, can't we be just a weeee little bit sarcastic sometimes?
On a more serious note, it is the case that when there is a Really Big Problem, there is usually a "reform" wing and a "radical" wing. The two wings often agree vaguely on the outcome, but disagree vehemently about how to get there. The radical wing accuses the reform wing of useless, sell-out reforms, and the reformers accuse the radicals of ruining their practical programs, as Sean sort of did in a comment.
In truth, they generally help each other. The classic case is during the Great Depression, when a Socialist ran for president (no, I am not defending Nader, that was a different situation). Norman Thomas (father of Time's Evan Thomas, by the way) proposed what eventually became the New Deal. The radicals proposed something "impractical", the liberals waffled, and when the going got really tough, because the radicals (including Communists, at the time), sounded, well, so radical, the liberals sounded reasonable, and New Deal legislation passed.
I think, hopefully, the same dynamic will occur here. "Radical" solutions will sound, well, radical, good liberals (ok, reformers) will make more "reasonable" proposals, and then when things get really bad, the non-dreamy-eyed reformers will rip off much of what the radicals are saying, and hopefully the planet will be better off for it.
So don't worry Dave (although I quite enjoy the debate), it's a good sign.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:03 am
01 Aug 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 3:09 am
01 Aug 2007
Rants: people who criticize ethanol are bad! No, turns out they're right. People who criticize biodiesel are bad! No, turns out they're right. People who criticize unverified offset markets are bad! People who criticize the Prius are bad! People who criticize hypercars are bad! People who criticize anything which might eventually some day possibly have some tiny environmental benefit are bad! People who disagree with me are bad!
Instead of willy nilly plans and rants how about let's do thoughtful analysis leading to intelligent proposals that are actually likely to be effective in avoiding climate change catastrophe and then let's continue to do intelligent critique of those proposals to refine them and test them as we lobby the hell out of them. And let's also be thinking too about some backup options in case that doesn't work.
Isn't that why we meet here?
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:43 am
01 Aug 2007
In my opinion, there is a tendency to tear apart potential solutions to a problem and reject them rather than calmly discuss the potential solutions, identify whether they might create more problems, and shape them into something we can all get behind.
I'll leave it to others to identify specific examples.
Forward!
Permalink