ACism and global warming

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that if I ask a statist what should be done about global warming, he'll have an acceptable answer ready. If I ask an ACist he will attack the statist's answer and the premise of the question, but he will not propose a solution of his own.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure why you bothered to ask the question. It seems you've already made up your mind and aren't really interested in the answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cry me a river. As anyone would with half a brain, he is stating his annoyance at the repetitive non-inspiring rhetoric spurted out by some of the resident Acist that pose no real constructive change to society to tackle issues such as global warming whilst pertaining to an exhausted line of answers slightly modified to suit the question. And he is actually spot on.

[Felz]

[ QUOTE ]
People care about global warming = market for a solution to global warming = AC Solution to global warming.

If something is demanded by a lot of people either the market will provide it computers, fish, ipods, or it is impossible to provide such a thing at this time teleportation, time travel, immortalitly in which case a state won't be able to provide it either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, what the ...
Please never post on economic issues again, like never ever...

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People care about global warming = market for a solution to global warming = AC Solution to global warming.

If something is demanded by a lot of people either the market will provide it computers, fish, ipods, or it is impossible to provide such a thing at this time teleportation, time travel, immortalitly in which case a state won't be able to provide it either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, what the ...
Please never post on economic issues again, like never ever...

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your lengthy and detailed rebuttal.

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People care about global warming = market for a solution to global warming = AC Solution to global warming.

If something is demanded by a lot of people either the market will provide it computers, fish, ipods, or it is impossible to provide such a thing at this time teleportation, time travel, immortalitly in which case a state won't be able to provide it either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, what the ...
Please never post on economic issues again, like never ever...

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your lengthy and detailed rebuttal.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was merely pointing out your failed attempt at a coherent rebuttal. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[tomdemaine]

I was merely makeing a statement. I would be quite interested in reading the list of things that are demanded by lots of people, and possible that are not provided by the market. Presuming of course that governments don't forcibly stop the market from providing them.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Prove to me that any state sponsored action to "combat" global warming is actually doing anything that has an iota of impact i.e. that if followed by all people, nations, whatever, will stop flooding Bangladesh. Better yet prove to me that Bangladesh will be flooded due to global warming. I'm not an ACist but I have to take issue with your befief that it's a given more or less that government needs to/has to do anything. Furthermore I take issue with the your assumption that government actually knows what is effective and what is not in "combatting" global warming.

[/ QUOTE ] It seems to me that if I ask a statist what should be done about global warming, he'll have an acceptable answer ready. If I ask an ACist he will attack the statist's answer and the premise of the question, but he will not propose a solution of his own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note that your original post makes some premises which I'll highlight here:

1) Global warming presents a threat. The degree and nature of the threat was not elaborated on but with your comment on "flooding Bangladesh" I think it's fair to say that you believe global warming present a threat that would cause great human suffering at the very least. If you believe this is not the case could you elaborate on what you believe the nature of the threat is.

2) That there is something that needs to be done to counteract that threat i.e. the threat can be mitigated.

3) What needs to be done to counteract the threat is well known and proven to work effectively.

4) There are states that are actually counteracting the threat effectively.

Sorry but none of these 4 are a given or proven. In any kind of exercise of logic that I know of, one can basically arrive at any conclusion they desire by using false premises. You haven't offered any prove for one these let alone all of them. Many folks will say that 1) and 2) are proven (I don't agree at all). Some will state that 3) is true as well . I think that 4) is an act of faith.

It's hard to really answer a question when the premises for the question are so open to debate IMO. One of my pet peeves is that people assume crap is true that is spewed to them from the media, government, etc. all the time that they shouldn't assume is true IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you see how that is worrying to me if I were to consider becoming an anarchist.


especially this question is what I want answered: If individuals in Y are not fine with giving up personal comfort to stop bad thing X, does that mean the citizens of Z will just have to deal with the negative consequences of that, and you don't think there's anything that could or should be done? Global warming is just an example of this kind of scenario. If you don't think it's likely enough that Bangladesh would be flooded, use another example like the citizens in ACland building nuclear power plants with weak safety.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok I'm not an ACist so I'll defer to them. I will say that don't be reluctant to pose questions in an abstract manner because IMO the vast majority of posters on this forum can handle abstract concepts quite well.

[FooSH]

Okay then, lets say that everyone who is affected by a specific polluter has a successful day in court and they receive damages. That could mean millions of individuals all getting payout from one company. Could that not make any form of pollution heavily -EV. After all, you know how much people love their litigation. What effect would that have on industry?

And does this not mean that the economic and ecological fate of the world will be decided by one judge/arbiter. What if his dog just died? It's not like there's a higher court to appeal to.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay then, lets say that everyone who is affected by a specific polluter has a successful day in court and they receive damages. That could mean millions of individuals all getting payout from one company. Could that not make any form of pollution heavily -EV. After all, you know how much people love their litigation. What effect would that have on industry?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're worried about limitations on industry, you should be equally worried about governments imposing anti-pollution rules on them. It's not like government officials have some special status that allows them to perfectly balance costs and benefits. In fact, many people agree that governments are substantially WORSE at this than the market.

[ QUOTE ]
And does this not mean that the economic and ecological fate of the world will be decided by one judge/arbiter. What if his dog just died? It's not like there's a higher court to appeal to.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's unlikely that a single judge will effectively rule against all economic and ecological development, similar to how a government leader isn't going to be able to declare Jump of a Bridge Day and watch as everyone jumps of bridges. And there's no higher court to appeal to when you don't like the government's actions, either.

[tomdemaine]

On taking a food item off a supermarket shelf, consumers can instantly read in detail the impact it will have on the body. But what about the effect on the planet?

In April, Walkers Crisps began labelling its cheese and onion bags with a carbon footprint - how many grams of greenhouse gases were emitted in its production - and that has been rolled out to other flavours.

Nine more companies, among them Coca-Cola and Cadbury, are committed to following Walkers when the methodology used by the Carbon Trust is approved next year.

Boots already reveals footprint figures on certain products at the point of sale, and Innocent Smoothies has the information on its website.


"Ultimately the aspiration is that everything you can buy will have a carbon measure with it - 75g is the first number out there and actually there's not much context for it," says Euan Murray of the Carbon Trust. "But when we can start making comparisons across different products, then we can make choices as consumers."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7002450.stm

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry but none of these 4 are a given or proven. In any kind of exercise of logic that I know of, one can basically arrive at any conclusion they desire by using false premises. You haven't offered any prove for one these let alone all of them. Many folks will say that 1) and 2) are proven (I don't agree at all). Some will state that 3) is true as well . I think that 4) is an act of faith.

[/ QUOTE ] I state quite clearly in my OP that I don't think 4) is true. Anyway you accept the more abstract question, so nothing to argue about.