Comments Fergus Brown has made

Sean

Thanks for the feedback. can't say there's a lot to disagree with there, and I understand this isn't about solar vs coal (per se), but the distinction is moot if the target of your concern is dirty coal; cheap no wins in the value measurement.

What you say about a lot of involved agencies is interesting, because it leads to another thought: one benefit of individual sourcing their power at home with solar and wind is that it cuts out the utility problem to a certain extent. Won't stop the utes from selling their power to someone else, but it could help lower the burden.

Via the financial pages, I hear that there are about 70 nuclear projects on the drawing board globally as we speak. Given the short-medium term choice between coal and nuclear, which is the lesser of two evils?

regards,

Turned out nice again...

you seem to be forgetting...

there is a point which Michael made which I think is important and is being overlooked; if you use an economic metric to measure best solution, you'll normally end up losing. This can be illustrated by looking at the Prisoner's Dilemma-type model: everyone knows it would be best for all of us in the long run if we cut emissions now, but self-interest, defined as a cost/return, NPV, whatever economic metric you choose, will always dictate that the emissions continue.

It occurs to me that DR is attacking along this front; if it can be established that (present) economic self-interest is better served by change than inaction, then there is no longer an excuse. Michael's way is more radical ( and possibly more scary); the way round the dilemma is to change the measure by which we determine present value. narrow the focus to money, and there's a battle to be won: broaden the focus to the 'big picture' of what we really value; comfort, security, nature, happiness, etc., and there is no longer a dilemma; it is then in anyone's best interest to act.

Turned out nice again...

Too strong?

Maybe overdoing it a bit, don't know, but it looks a bit like going from 'everyone has an equal right to leave s*** on their neighbour's doorstep' to 'everyone has an equal right to not die from lack of water or shelter'. That about sums it up for me.
Regards,

Turned out nice again...

clarification

David (the Sustainable), thanks for responding. Just to clarify; EE isn't new. but I am new to EE (though I thought Leopold's book was published in 1968?). A philosopher might argue, though, that 50-odd years is barely time to work out what most of the main ideas are, never mind actually reach any conclusions.

On reflection, I tend towards the view that whether one is a 'revolutionary' (sic.) environmentalist, or a 'reformationist', both require a step-change in the way we conceive of our world and our roles and responsibilities in it. There is, though, a fundamental difference in the two broad perspectives, as you know.

How much does it matter why we take the right actions, so long as we take them, though? Trouble is, we need a way of defining right actions - we need a value system. Can we dispose of the value system which has created the world with live in so far? Or is it so deeply embedded in the meaning of modern human existence, that the best we can do is transform it? These questions matter, because if we aren't clear why we want things to change, we're never going to persuade people who don't want to, and to get the whole system in sync., we need the majority on 'our' side.

Turned out nice again...

Why not try this?

Public scepticism in the mass media probably needs to be addressed, but not in great detail, just enough to get the point across.

For the more insidious type of scepticism which bedevils blogs everywhere, can I suggest this:
http://fergusbrown.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/
shades-of-scepticism/#comment-52

I am in the process of preparing a ready-made potato-print image to cut out and keep, so that silliness can be addressed with a simple reply, involving the image; no effort wasted.

You could always ask Mr Beck why he feels compelled to mislead and deceive, and whether he is morally comfortable with the notion that such deceit may soon amount to culpable homicide?

Or maybe that's too harsh...

Turned out nice again...

Blimey!, as we Brits (don't) say...

Thanks to you, Caniscandida, for your words: the photograph on the blog is in fact the view from the cave I inhabit (the back window of the town house).

Being a fan of Levinas, I'd characterise a certain type of 'environmentalism' as being in 'bad faith'; I think this is the gist of Curtis' essay. Even changing a lifestyle can be, after all, more of a style statement than a commitment these days, and can (though not necessarily)merely be a substitute for responsibility on the larger scale. Assuaging one's guilt by purchasing carbon-offsets doesn't stop the carbon from getting into the atmosphere. 'Buying in' to an 'eco-friendly' lifestyle speaks for itself; it is just another fashionable response, like having a Prius as the 'second car'.

The cycle of capital-labour-consumption-waste- damage is a complex and interrelated one. We want our comfort (even a modern citizen living in a woodland shack with all amenities is still 'wealthy' by comparison to those in developing nations), and we want our freedoms; Curtis wants to question the foundation on which this type of thinking is based, AFAIU.

His message also seems linked to Levinas' perception of what it means to be good, to be fair, just and, above all, human. This is founded, to some degree, on the way in we we approach the world. It is founded in part on a value system which places no merit on appearance, and demands of the individual not to 'judge' others, but to let them be as they are.

If we are to see the 'quiet revolution' which sets off the process of reaching a fairer and more equitable world, it begins with what we value. As long as we succumb to the feeling that we are inadequate in the absence of visible property, we are doomed to fail. The revolution begins with wanting less.

Finally, on the subject of history; it's true, we never seem to learn. maybe because we don't place enough value on the lessons that others have learned before us.

Enough. Thank you for your attention. Be loved.

Turned out nice again...

more whining

JMG; assuming you've seen the context in which the comments are made, on my blog (thanks to DR for the name-check; I'm flattered), I am not usre what your don't understand.

Perhaps it is a specifically UK thing, but for many months now, the main emphasis of political comment on GW has been about the individual; individual responsibility, individual duty...

The impression is that the UK government is trying to get us all on a huge guilt trip about CC; we are responsible, not the government and not industry; we have to act, we have to pay tax, we are damaging the planet and NOT the manufacturers, producers, power companies.

Hopefully, my opinion of this political 'spin' should be clear from David's quote: I think it stinks; it is dishonest and manipulative.

None of this means that I do not think we should avoid acting to make our own lives less damaging to the earth's systems, but this choice should be a freely made, independent decision based on one's own ethical stance, not a response to the guilt trip mentioned above. At no point do I suggest that we should not act; but we should also not let government get away with shifting the responsibility for emissions away from the real sources and towards the taxpayer.

I think you should read the context before you make your mind up about what I am saying; you appear to have missed the point because you haven't looked for it, yet. That doesn't matter too much, so long as you have a look at the blog and delay a moral judgement of the author of the above extract until then.

Turned out nice again...