If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Why climate change is a political issue, not a scientific issue for fossil fuel magnates   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 13
    More: Obvious, the City of London, exhaust gas, fossil fuels, London School of Economics, atmospheric carbon dioxide  
•       •       •

2003 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Apr 2013 at 2:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-19 12:40:40 AM  
6 votes:
Go$h, I wonder what rea$ons$ there could po$$ibly be
2013-04-19 05:54:49 AM  
4 votes:
For the same reason tobacco safety is a political issue for tobacco companies...

For the same reason ozone depletion is a political issue for DuPont...

For the same reason acid rain is a political issue for coal-fired power plants...

Oddly enough, the same names such as The Heritage Institute and American Enterprise Institute keep popping up in all of these "controversies."
2013-04-20 12:07:26 PM  
1 votes:
I'm still reading Frédérick Bastiat's Beloved Liberal (Economic Liberal) manifesto, The Law.

One of my insights, or epiphanies, if you please, is that Bastiat's definition of "plunder" (spoliation in the original French) is very close to, perhaps identical with the modern concept of economic rents. An economic rent in the strict sense is money above and beyond the amount necessary for the rentier, capitalist or worker requires to reproduce. It's not unlike the concept of "fair interest" that the Roman Catholic Church adopted in its shift from regarding charging interest as unnatural and wicked (because it makes money reproduce unnaturally, just as homosexuals, contraception, and abortion stop natural human reproduction-Dante, Inferno).

Economic rents are often externalities (positive to those who receive them), namely unearned benefits (or conversely, unpaid costs).

In short, the fight against global climate change is mired in externalities and plunder. This is because the fossil fuel industry does not pay the costs (pollution, premature deaths, health care, environmental degradatio, mass extinction, etc) but acquires benefits (profits, subsidies, economic rents) well above those required to keep them happily in business for mere profits.

Those trillions of dollars of capital (in the ground) and profits (in the pockets and bank accounts) that the Wicked Environmentalists are trying to extract from the fossil fuel industry and the very few super or mere rich few who are lucky enough to own these industries and the industries, lands, etc., downstream or upstream (Rockefellers and Kochs, Armond Hammer's heirs and assigns, the Duponts, etc.) are externality-based economic rents.

Even loyal and devout liberal economists (read right wing economists in the US and Canada) have a way of criticizing externalities and spoliation slash plunder slash economic rents severely because they distort markets and because they are injust and reprehensible.

Taking somebody's money by violence is illegal. But as Bastiat and all of the liberal economists understood and very pointedly said, taking somebody's money through the monopoly of force of the State and through legal plunder is not only not illegal, but it is almost always regarded as moral and right even though it is manifestly robbing Peter to the immense profit of Paul. (Ron Paul!)

On the right you have pure capitalists who shout Free markets! while making them as unfree as possible (nobody loves competition, nobody, especially the most fiercely competitive--they love to use the State and the Law to plunder their competitors if they can't destroy them through their own little ways and means). On the left you have commies (who do not abjure violence by the State or by their own private factions), socialists (who mean well), philanthropists (who are socialists with money of their own) and the rest of us.

Because we all benefit and suffer from legal plunder, state force and economic rents, externalities and so forth, even those who most love them.

Adams, Bastiat, Marx, Hayak and the rest of the economics gang are severe critics of mechantilism, tariffs, unfree tree, Buy American and other follies which transfer money from the pockets of one group of people to another group of people without the free, voluntary, honest and above-board means of trade or contracts.

Plunder is everywhere and it has greatly increased since the days when Bastiat praised the US for being largely plunder-free except for trade restrictions and slavery and stealing land, lives and liberty from the native peoples, and so forth. (He only mentions two of these in his essay on the Law: protectionism and slavery, but obviously he is open to persuasion on other forms of plunder unknown to him at the time of writing.)

Adam Smith was a powerful and wise critic of British policy with regards to the colonies, and being a Scot of the Englightenment) was probably not too happy with colonialism, merchantilism and slavery. Whatever you or I may say against the Scots, I gladly acknowledge that dour Presbyterians were one of the most anti-slavery and anti-protectionist groups of people on Earth in the 1700s and 1800s (having experienced attacks on their own liberty and free trade by the English and some of their own allied to the English). Good on yah, Caledonia. Maybe you have a few reasons to think you are so hot after all.

It all comes down to plunder. The fossil fuel lords (literal Lords who can sit in the House of Lords, or just super-rich landowners and industrialists) have many trillions of good reasons ($$$) to hate environmentalists, but I would argue, with Smith, Hayak, Marx, and Bastiat, that YOU DO NOT.
2013-04-20 02:05:06 AM  
1 votes:

GeneralJim: KiltedBastich: You know, I'm starting to wonder if he's not a high-functioning delusional paranoid schizophrenic, or at least schizotypal, somewhere on that spectrum of mental illness. That's some really ludicrous paranoia he's got going there. A lot of schizophrenics are highly intelligent and creative before the illness begins to manifest, and they lack the context to understand why their new 'insights' are produced by their illness, not the intelligence and creativity that was the norm for them prior to symptom onset.
Well, SURE....  hurling personal slurs is EXACTLY the same as providing supporting data.
But, lest you think it paranoia, let me refute the lying sack -- and your "diagnosis," of course.  If people ARE saying such things, it is not paranoia to suggest that they are saying such things.  That, at least, seems clear...  so, onward:

Face it -- the U.N. sees climate issues as an excuse to re-distribute wealth, plain and simple.
"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore. . ."
"The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated." - Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair IPCC working group 3.
This hard-left [Obama] administration will probably be making attempts soon to have dissent from the state religion be criminal, or at least proof of insanity. Nothing like locking up any opposition.
In his June 23, 2008 testimony before the United States Congress, James Hansen called for the punishment of climate change skeptics for "crimes against humanity".
many in the green movement DO want humanity eliminated
The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing....This ...



This sort of thing actually makes sense given GeneralJim's approach to evidence in general - cherry-pick data, misrepresent and overstate what it says, and make wild generalizations from that, all in order to serve a strong a priori ideological conviction.

I mean, it appears it does not matter to him of the really poor quality of the evidence he uses - that what he quoted (in bold above)  wasn't actually said by the person he's attributing it to, or that the opinion of one person does not somehow support the idea that the Obama administration will be "making attempts soon to have dissent from the state religion be criminal, or at least proof of insanity". Even when he has a point worth talking about (as the last one is) he manages to taint it by providing quotes that mostly do not support it.

It's as if actually considering the evidence isn't an important part of the way he forms his opinions.
2013-04-19 04:54:41 PM  
1 votes:

GeneralJim: maxheck: For the same reason tobacco safety is a political issue for tobacco companies...

For the same reason ozone depletion is a political issue for DuPont...

For the same reason acid rain is a political issue for coal-fired power plants...

Oddly enough, the same names such as The Heritage Institute and American Enterprise Institute keep popping up in all of these "controversies."

[www.mobidroid.com image 300x225]
It's a conspiracy!



Not sure you should be throwing stones given the glass house you inhabit:

GeneralJim: If not for the fact that literally TRILLIONS of dollars, and the control of almost all human activity, are at stake, the idea that carbon dioxide controls temperature would have disappeared.


GeneralJim: [The scientific community] is now carrying water for the environmental activist retards in hopes of scaring people into making the U.N. the world's dictator


GeneralJim: Face it -- the U.N. sees climate issues as an excuse to re-distribute wealth, plain and simple.


GeneralJim: The U.N. and U.S. leftist bungholes pushing this want to control essentially every human action.


GeneralJim: This hard-left [Obama] administration will probably be making attempts soon to have dissent from the state religion be criminal, or at least proof of insanity. Nothing like locking up any opposition.


GeneralJim: They [the UN/IPCC] have the ability to end up destroying civilization out of this, and sending us back to a new sort of hunter-gatherer society.


GeneralJim: many in the green movement DO want humanity eliminated

2013-04-19 03:47:29 PM  
1 votes:
2013-04-19 08:54:14 AM  
1 votes:

GeneralJim: maxheck: For the same reason tobacco safety is a political issue for tobacco companies...

For the same reason ozone depletion is a political issue for DuPont...

For the same reason acid rain is a political issue for coal-fired power plants...

Oddly enough, the same names such as The Heritage Institute and American Enterprise Institute keep popping up in all of these "controversies."

[www.mobidroid.com image 300x225]
It's a conspiracy!


You sure you want to accuse people of tin-foil hattery when they list, you know, proven "controversies" that ended up being true and whitwashed by the industries that stood to get restricted by efforts to improve those issues?

No, no, decades of the tobacco lobby saying cigarettes were not addictive or dangerous is crazy talk. Only Alex Jones would believe that.
2013-04-19 08:37:20 AM  
1 votes:
Because money now, while they are alive, is more useful to them than a habitable planet, when they are dead.
2013-04-19 05:47:05 AM  
1 votes:
It's a political issue because it involves getting people who have money and influence to do the right thing for everyone else in the face of their own short-term economic interests. They , as they always have, are using the political process to keep the nation from making decisive regulatory action until they feel they have squeezed enough coal and oil wealth out of this country before decamping to some tiny (preferably tropical or sophisticated) data/money haven from whence they can suck the life from the rest of the planet as it suffers roiling, massive economic turmoil and expurgates their shills from power. Once the next generation of 'reformers' have made enough shady deals, screwed enough skanks and taken enough payola, they'll come back in.

... If it was a whole mass of little people poisoning the planet for profit and fun, the army would be used to wipe them out.
2013-04-19 03:59:18 AM  
1 votes:
Hold on a damn second!

You mean to tell me oil, coal and gas companies want the public at large to bear all the costs of their pollution so they can continue making obscene profits!?  I don't believe it!

I also refuse to believe that those same companies are deliberately undermining public acceptance of man made global warming so as to delay or prevent political action so they can continue making obscene profits.
2013-04-19 03:10:27 AM  
1 votes:
It's annoying we still even have these threads on Fark. They peaked around 2006. That's right --7 years ago.

This country is still way too wrapped up in the fossil fuel consumption myth, that the supply is endless and it's OK to keep belching that crap out into our environment. Interesting times.
2013-04-19 02:47:29 AM  
1 votes:
It's a political issue because the issue has been hijacked by the left and made in to something they can use for their own agenda and the environment is not their concern.
2013-04-19 02:06:44 AM  
1 votes:
It says if this continues for a decade - and if CO2 limits are achieved - they would waste over £4tn.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

They'll just sell it to whatever country decides they aren't going to follow carbon caps.  I'll guess China or India.  Anyone who thinks extracted energy is ever going to go to waste is a fool.
 
Displayed 13 of 13 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report