<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for To reach a climate agreement in the near future, countries must look into the past]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Steven Earl Salmony http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-15-climate-agreement-future/ Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:21:38 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-15-climate-agreement-future/1 How is the family of humanity to sensibly organize to respond ably to the human folly, avarice and stupidity that is now being consciously perpetrated by those few million greedy people who possess a lion’s share of the world’s wealth and the power it purchases? After all, a tiny minority is primarily responsible for the Earth being ravaged and threatened as a fit place for habitation by our children.

When are the morally bankrupt, super-rich Masters of the Universe among us to be held to account for having disgracefully institutionalized the ‘goodness’ of their pathological arrogance, conspicuous consumption and excessive hoarding for the benefit of none others than themselves and minions? For many too many economic powerbrokers and their bought-and-paid-for politicians
short-term financial gains, power accrual, economic expediency and political convenience have directed their thought and behavior.

Perhaps it is time for many ordinary people not only to deploy these words from Mohandas Gandhi, “Be the change you wish to see in the world”, but also to live out this great man’s example of principled, peaceful, refusal to submit to arrogant, dishonest, avaricious and dishonorable authority that is relentlessly degrading Earth’s frangible environment and recklessly dissipating Earth’s limited resources in our time.

Perhaps honesty, more transparency, constructive personal action, accountability and necessary social change are in the offing.

Scientists have a duty to warn and to inform; leaders of the family of humanity have a responsibility to act with moral courage and a willingness to do the right thing. At least some scientists appear to be doing their duty. Except for a precious few, great human beings like President Barack Obama, the human community appears to be virtually bereft of adequate leaders.


]]> How is the family of humanity to sensibly organize to respond ably to the human folly, avarice and stupidity that is now being consciously perpetrated by those few million greedy people who possess a lion’s share of the world’s wealth and the power it purchases? After all, a tiny minority is primarily responsible for the Earth being ravaged and threatened as a fit place for habitation by our children.

When are the morally bankrupt, super-rich Masters of the Universe among us to be held to account for having disgracefully institutionalized the ‘goodness’ of their pathological arrogance, conspicuous consumption and excessive hoarding for the benefit of none others than themselves and minions? For many too many economic powerbrokers and their bought-and-paid-for politicians
short-term financial gains, power accrual, economic expediency and political convenience have directed their thought and behavior.

Perhaps it is time for many ordinary people not only to deploy these words from Mohandas Gandhi, “Be the change you wish to see in the world”, but also to live out this great man’s example of principled, peaceful, refusal to submit to arrogant, dishonest, avaricious and dishonorable authority that is relentlessly degrading Earth’s frangible environment and recklessly dissipating Earth’s limited resources in our time.

Perhaps honesty, more transparency, constructive personal action, accountability and necessary social change are in the offing.

Scientists have a duty to warn and to inform; leaders of the family of humanity have a responsibility to act with moral courage and a willingness to do the right thing. At least some scientists appear to be doing their duty. Except for a precious few, great human beings like President Barack Obama, the human community appears to be virtually bereft of adequate leaders.


]]> Comment #2 by Andrée Zaleska http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-15-climate-agreement-future/ Tue, 16 Jun 2009 07:05:03 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-15-climate-agreement-future/2 Janet, Excellent analysis and a very fair presentation of the problem of the misuse of the "commons" of our atmosphere.  It's right to think of our debt to the poor, when so much has been made out of the monetary debt of the poor countries to us.

Andrée Zaleska

JP Green House

www.jpgreenhouse.org

]]> Janet, Excellent analysis and a very fair presentation of the problem of the misuse of the "commons" of our atmosphere.  It's right to think of our debt to the poor, when so much has been made out of the monetary debt of the poor countries to us.

Andrée Zaleska

JP Green House

www.jpgreenhouse.org

]]> Comment #3 by Global Changes http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-15-climate-agreement-future/ Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:34:55 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-15-climate-agreement-future/3 I do think that the countries responsible for emitting all the CO2 over the past decades should be responsible for it aswell as their current emissions. The poorest countries will be hit first by climate change, and it is the duty of the those responsible to do something about it before its too late.

]]> I do think that the countries responsible for emitting all the CO2 over the past decades should be responsible for it aswell as their current emissions. The poorest countries will be hit first by climate change, and it is the duty of the those responsible to do something about it before its too late.

]]> Comment #4 by Ken Ward http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-15-climate-agreement-future/ Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:37:48 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-15-climate-agreement-future/4 "The idea that poorer countries shouldn’t use the atmospheric commons to develop is not only unjust, it’s unrealistic."

This line struck me as worrisome and, thinking it over, I come down in a different spot then my partner Andrée does above. I do agree with the general thrust of Janet's analysis – us 1st world hogs have a moral, political and pragmatic obligation to less-profligate societies – but I disagree with all three premises above: 1. poor ("less rich" is, I think more accurate) nations should not "develop" as the US did; it's destructive and does not necessarily "improve quality of life"; 2. should less rich nations keep ramping up carbon emissions in the secure understanding that doing so rights a previous wrong, they will be acting unjustly, in turn, toward other living things and future generations, and; 3. let's be real here, no solution is "realistic," if we understand this to mean averting climate cataclysm without global upheaval – if that's the standard, we might as well just give up now. What we need to be debating now is which unrealistic solution is most realistic (and beneficial in the long term). The equitable and green answer is that the 1st world pays for a global transfer to renewables in exchange for cap & phase out on extractions. The alternative "unrealistic" solution will be one or more techno-crackpot responses, life shooting sulphur into the upper atmosphere – stuff that can be done cheaply and unilaterally   ...   The upshot, I think, is that "atmospheric commons" is not a useful extension of Hardin's use of the term, because putting carbon into the atmosphere appears more and more like exposure to radiation – we have no idea what the "safe" limit might have been.

]]> "The idea that poorer countries shouldn’t use the atmospheric commons to develop is not only unjust, it’s unrealistic."

This line struck me as worrisome and, thinking it over, I come down in a different spot then my partner Andrée does above. I do agree with the general thrust of Janet's analysis – us 1st world hogs have a moral, political and pragmatic obligation to less-profligate societies – but I disagree with all three premises above: 1. poor ("less rich" is, I think more accurate) nations should not "develop" as the US did; it's destructive and does not necessarily "improve quality of life"; 2. should less rich nations keep ramping up carbon emissions in the secure understanding that doing so rights a previous wrong, they will be acting unjustly, in turn, toward other living things and future generations, and; 3. let's be real here, no solution is "realistic," if we understand this to mean averting climate cataclysm without global upheaval – if that's the standard, we might as well just give up now. What we need to be debating now is which unrealistic solution is most realistic (and beneficial in the long term). The equitable and green answer is that the 1st world pays for a global transfer to renewables in exchange for cap & phase out on extractions. The alternative "unrealistic" solution will be one or more techno-crackpot responses, life shooting sulphur into the upper atmosphere – stuff that can be done cheaply and unilaterally   ...   The upshot, I think, is that "atmospheric commons" is not a useful extension of Hardin's use of the term, because putting carbon into the atmosphere appears more and more like exposure to radiation – we have no idea what the "safe" limit might have been.

]]>