Comments on: TOM THE DANCING BUG: What Will Be the Biggest Political Story of 2032?

By: l337n00b

l337n00b — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:15:00 +0000

I think this is a foolish exaggeration. What would you be willing to give up to mitigate climate change?

Rule of law? Racial equality? Human Rights?

By: l337n00b

l337n00b — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:10:00 +0000

Here’s the problem: you are equivocating. Economists use dollars as a metric for everything, which is handy because it lets us compare one thing to another. But in the end, those dollars represent real things in the world. Just because we use dollars as our unit of measurement doesn’t mean that the solution is more dollars. Think of it this way: You measure your pig pen in square meters, but if you get more pigs you don’t need more square meters, you need more fence.

Any rational assessment of the current wealth of the world would have climate change on the books as a significant liability. Therefore mitigating climate change *is* increasing the wealth of everyone.

So yes, the solution is more wealth, but that’s a tautology.

By: l337n00b

l337n00b — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:55:00 +0000

There are absolutely reasons to be optimistic. If it’s already too late then why are we even having the discussion?

Recognizing that climate change is a big problem that we should be addressing and believing in our collective ability to find solutions are not incompatible.

By: ocker3

ocker3 — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:05:00 +0000

the death of lots of people, animals and plants is what many people are afraid will happen, and those are the optimists

By: EvilTerran

EvilTerran — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:18:00 +0000

And how do you plan to enrich the poor?

“Voting for more wealth” isn’t an answer, that doesn’t mean anything.

By: SoItBegins

SoItBegins — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 06:25:00 +0000

”That planet? ‘e’s not dead. ‘e’s pining for the fnords.”

By: billstewart

billstewart — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 02:00:00 +0000

There are other issues of that scale. Nuclear war used to be a popular one, though the military has found that they don’t need that threat to get funding, since terrorist Muslims are almost as good as Commies, and even conventional war is still significant. Population’s a big issue (not that it’s that far separate from the global warming problem, especially since the best solution for overpopulation has been increasing prosperity so people don’t need to have as many kids.)

By: Walter Guyll

Walter Guyll — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 00:41:00 +0000

So, we eliminate the corrupting rich or enrich the poor. I vote for more wealth.

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:59:00 +0000

…is it the rich countries or the poor ones that have cleaner environments?

The poor countries have worse environments because the rich countries bribe corrupt officials to let them dump their toxic waste there while strip mining the countryside.

Nice try, though.

By: Walter Guyll

Walter Guyll — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:38:00 +0000

Sagodjur, is it the rich countries or the poor ones that have cleaner environments?

By: humanresource

humanresource — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:29:00 +0000

Perhaps such threads could be accompanied by links to groups that are actually doing something about these issues? Just a thought… but you know, there are a lot of clever and resourceful people who follow this site, and who knows what they’re capable of if they team up?

By: Sagodjur

Sagodjur — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:25:00 +0000

Unless your general definition of wealth is different than mine, you seem to be pushing a false dilemma. I would neither promote poverty nor encourage “wealth.” I’d encourage obtaining enough to enjoy the higher tiers of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs without wanting too much or seeking to control others. There’s a significant middle ground between wallowing in poverty and Mitt Romney-levels of wealth. But to imagine the self-interest of the wealthy will bring anything more than more corruption and absurdity seems naive and/or like a libertarian wet dream.

By: Walter Guyll

Walter Guyll — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:12:00 +0000

Promoting poverty is the worst prescription.

By: Sagodjur

Sagodjur — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:09:00 +0000

Epic sarcasm?

By: silkox

silkox — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:04:00 +0000

I should have commented when I first saw this: I wish bb did a much better job of covering climate change issues.

By: Walter Guyll

Walter Guyll — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:02:00 +0000

For some, there is always “only one political issue on Planet Earth.” A generation ago it was usually runaway population; before that racial intolerance. These problems usually called for draconian action.

And then there’s those, such as myself, with one general prescription for most problems: encourage wealth.

The rich will handle climate change quite well. And as the rich prefer a clean, safe and comfortable environment, why not help everyone accumulate more wealth?

Win win.

By: wysinwyg

wysinwyg — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:35:00 +0000

If you think so then you’re probably missing the point.

By: max00

max00 — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:29:00 +0000

This one works it nearly to death.

By: Matthew Jones

Matthew Jones — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:25:00 +0000

What about the “Statute” of Liberty being recycled to keep pennies in circulation as the ONLY form of currency?

By: millie fink

millie fink — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:18:00 +0000

heavystarch said, “ Luckily these changes occur slowly enough for mankind to adapt rather easily.”

Jeez, you sound like an oil CEO.

In a speech on Wednesday, [Exxon Head] Tillerson acknowledged that burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet, but said society will be able to adapt. . . . ”We have spent our entire existence adapting. We’ll adapt,” he said. “It’s an engineering problem and there will be an engineering solution.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/28/exxonmobil-climate-change-rex-tillerson

At least you acknowledge in the end that your whole comment is bollocks.

By: max00

max00 — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:50:00 +0000

Har.

By: Robert Drop

Robert Drop — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:33:00 +0000

So the only exaggerated bit is the amount of sea level rise? Yeah, that sounds about right, unfortunately.

By: Kimmo

Kimmo — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:22:00 +0000

When you put it like that, it doesn’t sound good…

And how about this: even if folks are smart enough to see the writing on the wall, that alone isn’t enough to change their behaviour if it’s part of some kind of addiction. And people can get addicted to anything.

By: wysinwyg

wysinwyg — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:21:00 +0000

Apparently it was too subtle. You seem to have missed it.

Have you seen the fnords?

By: wysinwyg

wysinwyg — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:19:00 +0000

“too alarmist for me”
Helpful hint: cartoons often employ hyperbole.

By: Kimmo

Kimmo — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:19:00 +0000

As a 38yo, I can look forward to saying, I told you fuckheads so in the bloody 90s, without having to put up with too much calamity, hopefully.

Although I’m bumming that I won’t be rich enough to afford healthcare when I’ll need it (as an Australian, I anticipate most of the horrible crap from the US to eventually infest my reality, thanks for that, Chicago School of Economics), and I’m really going to miss seafood. And toilet paper.

By: wysinwyg

wysinwyg — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:17:00 +0000

We’ve lost that losing battle. Shut up, dig your grave, and enjoy the slide.*

*Just riffing off your post, not intended to be dickish.

By: max00

max00 — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:14:00 +0000

The worst case scenario in the IPCC report is about 2 feet of sea level rise by 2100.

So the comic is at least plenty exaggerated (2 feet would cause some problems in D.C., it wouldn’t flood the Capitol Building, or Hawaii).

By: Kimmo

Kimmo — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:12:00 +0000

Yeah, I think I like that one more.

By: Red Pill Junkie

Red Pill Junkie — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:10:00 +0000

How about the passing of a law that would enforce mandatory use of bullet-proof vests and gas masks in order to be granted entrance to a movie theater?

You know there are people on the Hill right now who are considering this.