GSchmidt’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  What do we measure?

  It's interesting: When you try to measure and compare the happiness of different peoples, for example, your epistemology, methods, etc. are immediately questioned.
  When it comes to the economy, the question is only growth or no-growth. What we measure, how we measure economic growth is strongly based on (historically-grown) conventions.
  If we decided to base our measure of "the economy" to include nature (in economic terms: internalize externalities, factor in ecosystem services, just for two obvious missing pieces) and we would probably have negative economic growth right now, and positive/real growth with development towards sustainability...

  Dr. Gerald Schmidt Positive Ecology Project www.positive-ecology.org

  On Since when is regulation optimal? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 25 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Hmm?

  Taking this logic backwards (ahem):
  Does that mean that if we had prevented Global Warming, we would all be straight, in marriages with men as breadwinners, wifey at home to care for the 2.5 (or was that more in the Fifties?) children?
  I mean, if GW = (future) abortion and gays, then maybe earlier no-GW (through prevention) = no abortions, no gays??

  Dr. Gerald Schmidt Positive Ecology Project www.positive-ecology.org

  On Notable quotable posted 1 year, 7 months ago 24 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Continually amazed....

  ... by the parochialism.
  Okay, this time around, the snow in Baghdad was mentioned in support of the "it's cold, now wouldn't you care for some of that global warming."
  Where I now live in the Baltics, it's been the warmest winter (as in the season) since something like 1928, February has hardly seen any snow.
  Back in Austria, this season has brought snow (as opposed to the winter before), and immediately there is less reporting about possible challenges of climate change to skiing industry. However, föhn winds had also brought temperatures up to +15 centigrade, quite a few times.
  We had "the one" big storm for this decade (so it sounded in news) in 2007... then January of this year brought "Paula," March brought "Emma"...
  I wouldn't say it's global warming, but it sure is different.

  Dr. Gerald Schmidt Positive Ecology Project www.positive-ecology.org

  On Where is the media coverage of February's incredible warming and extreme weather? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 11 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I guess we misunderstood...

  ... and so, we failed to read between the lines: "beyond [easily extractable, the uphill part to Hubbert's peak] petroleum" [and on to the downhill part of Hubbert's peak, where difficult-to-extract petrol from tar sands is the latest hope]. ...?

  Dr. Gerald Schmidt Positive Ecology Project www.positive-ecology.org

  On BP joins 'biggest global warming crime ever seen' posted 1 year, 10 months ago 11 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Exactly my point...

  ... except that an "objective" economic analysis á la Lomborg's cost-benefit on climate change seems not to know that to most people, (their) lives are pretty valuable. Even if "lifetime productivity" in merely economic terms may be low...
  Staying within that perspective, you could say that the death of such a poor person, who can't replace even the little they lost, doesn't matter much to "the economy."
  (And in some cases, they may actually be in a better position: As Jaret Diamond pointed out, if a global crisis hits, his New Guinean indigenous friends would, by and large, just go on as they always have, replacing stone axe with stone axe, hut with hut...)

  But, is this really the way we want to see things, the future we see for humanity?

  Your point about the "poor rich" points to what I'm trying mainly to work on: When environmentalists tell them, e.g. "they should contribute more," it seems they hear that they should just give up the little they (and actually, I feel it's a "we") have been able to get (and the poor want to get, finally). Who'd want that?
  What get's overlooked is that - hopefully - you could "contribute more" in other ways, by which you gain in quality of life / well-being, so that - just as you are saying, "no one loses."

  Dr. Gerald Schmidt Positive Ecology Project www.positive-ecology.org

  On Why ecology explains growth, and economists don't posted 1 year, 10 months ago 33 Responses