Roger Lamb’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  "Getting It"

  Bill says:
  

  
  By get, I mean understanding that the question is of transcending urgency, that it represents the one overarching global civilizational challenge that humans have ever faced.
  

  Clarifying, he adds:
  

  
  It's just that when [other environmental] efforts come into conflict with the imperative need to act urgently on global warming, they have to take second place.

  Why? Because even if we win every other battle, if we lose this one, it won't make any difference at all.
  

  Summing, he thinks acting urgently on global warming is a necessary condition for success in any of the other environmental "battles" dear to the hearts of environmentalists.  

  He may be right.  Yet if he is right, there is nothing about the semantics of his claim that requires there are not other similar necessary conditions.  There may be several, maybe even many, of them.  

  We used to think that winning the fight against continual population growth was like what Bill thinks is true of winning the fight against global warming.  Lose that battle, and you'll lose all the rest, we thought.  Hopefully, we were wrong - because if that battle is not already lost, it must be very close to lost.  If we were right and the battle is lost, then we are in rear-guard-actions territory right now.

  In general, I think we need a discussion of what the present priorities of the environmental movement should be.  What are the "questions of transcending urgency" - what are the priorities?  What battles are "musts" for us, in order that we can carry on and sensibly engage in other battles?  Perhaps it will turn out that one of the most important environmental battles will be the political battle to remove Republicans from office for a couple of generations.

  Perhaps, too, working against species loss is an example of a battle which must be won if various other important battles are to be sensibly engaged in.  After all, even if we win the fight over global warming (as hard as that might be to credit), and badly lose the fight against species loss, we automatically lose other battles as well, e.g., the fight to preserve what wilderness there is left.  

  But we need the discussion about priorities, about dependency relationships between the issues - in order to be maximally effective (or, at least, minimally ineffective).        
  On Climate change is pushing this easygoing enviro over the edge posted 3 years, 10 months ago 57 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  "Getting It"

  Bill says:
  

  
  By get, I mean understanding that the question is of transcending urgency, that it represents the one overarching global civilizational challenge that humans have ever faced.
  

  Clarifying, he adds:
  

  
  It's just that when [other environmental] efforts come into conflict with the imperative need to act urgently on global warming, they have to take second place.

  Why? Because even if we win every other battle, if we lose this one, it won't make any difference at all.
  

  Summing, he thinks acting urgently on global warming is a necessary condition for success in any of the other environmental "battles" dear to the hearts of environmentalists.  

  He may be right.  Yet if he is right, there is nothing about the semantics of his claim that requires there are not other similar necessary conditions.  There may be several, maybe even many, of them.  

  We used to think that winning the fight against continual population growth was like what Bill thinks is true of winning the fight against global warming.  Lose that battle, and you'll lose all the rest, we thought.  Hopefully, we were wrong - because if that battle is not already lost, it must be very close to lost.  If we were right and the battle is lost, then we are in rear-guard-actions territory right now.

  In general, I think we need a discussion of what the present priorities of the environmental movement should be.  What are the "questions of transcending urgency" - what are the priorities?  What battles are "musts" for us, in order that we can carry on and sensibly engage in other battles?  Perhaps it will turn out that one of the most important environmental battles will be the political battle to remove Republicans from office for a couple of generations.

  Perhaps, too, working against species loss is an example of a battle which must be won if various other important battles are to be sensibly engaged in.  After all, even if we win the fight over global warming (as hard as that might be to credit), and badly lose the fight against species loss, we automatically lose other battles as well, e.g., the fight to preserve what wilderness there is left.  

  But we need the discussion about priorities, about dependency relationships between the issues - in order to be maximally effective (or, at least, minimally ineffective).        
  On RFK Jr. and other prominent enviros face off over Cape Cod wind farm posted 3 years, 10 months ago 57 Responses