| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 03 2017 01:57 Buckyman wrote: Once again, you're putting optics ahead of results. iirc you cited a single example with limited explanation; that's not sufficient to demonstrate results. something much more comprehensive would be required. especially given that policies do tend to at least loosely follow rhetoric. | ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
On June 03 2017 01:51 Danglars wrote: This is part of the reason I linked a fairly reasoned article concluding that it's likely the last step and people that think otherwise are fooling themselves. What's rich and deep is your deflection and misdirection while claiming others do so. I wonder if it will ever sink it that inattention to counterarguments isn't sufficient to restate your primary argument. I conclude x, and any articles that conclude otherwise are obvious misdirection. But I'm not really following the conclusion that he believes it's the last step and not the first. I think that’s the case here. I think Paris was not just the first step, I think it was likely the last step, that those who hoped it would lead to “deepening future commitments” were fooling themselves and others. I think Paris was agreed to only because national leaders realized it was impossible to get a numerically meaningful set of binding national commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by specific large amounts. If I'm trying to address a problem, especially a big problem (and affecting long term positive change for the environment is big), I'd start by defining it. Put some framework around an issue, get consensus, start working towards solutions. I acknowledge that you don't believe the costs of action are being sufficiently considered, and that's an ok argument to have. But the US staking the position of "nah, we're just gonna go home instead" doesn't put us in a better position to solve the problem. Unless I'm missing something, I don't get the assumption that there would be not further steps taken beyond Paris. Getting the globe on the same page is where it starts, but it feels like the US was spacing out while reading, so we've had to flip back to the last chapter before we can move forward again. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On June 03 2017 01:58 LegalLord wrote: By moving around the emissions in such a way that the cars his company produces (on the back of billions of dollars subsidies) don't emit while driving? Or his solar company that is a scam? I'm surprised SpaceX isn't trying to peddle being green yet. Well... they *are* into recycling.... | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 03 2017 01:51 a_flayer wrote: It's good to hear that you would have wanted the US to agree to a climate change treaty that said every country must cut emissions by 98% in 2025. Something that would have real significant impact, and wouldn't be symbolic in nature. It wouldn't have to be 98% to be a solid first step in letting the world know the US is the odd one out in making sacrifices to combat global warming. You could actually look at the list of countries that ratified it and passed legislative acts limiting pollution. Now, you just have a wonderful international agreement with tons of countries signing on to show how serious they are about talking of the problem and doing nothing about the problem. You may have noticed in your own personal life how much people talk about changing habits who have no intention of actually investing the effort to change them. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 03 2017 02:00 jcarlsoniv wrote: But I'm not really following the conclusion that he believes it's the last step and not the first. If I'm trying to address a problem, especially a big problem (and affecting long term positive change for the environment is big), I'd start by defining it. Put some framework around an issue, get consensus, start working towards solutions. I acknowledge that you don't believe the costs of action are being sufficiently considered, and that's an ok argument to have. But the US staking the position of "nah, we're just gonna go home instead" doesn't put us in a better position to solve the problem. Unless I'm missing something, I don't get the assumption that there would be not further steps taken beyond Paris. Getting the globe on the same page is where it starts, but it feels like the US was spacing out while reading, so we've had to flip back to the last chapter before we can move forward again. You quote a paragraph in the middle of the article that follows from the argumentation in the paragraphs preceding. Pay special attention to the political interest and comparison between changing direction in inches when different outcomes are miles apart. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On June 03 2017 01:54 Danglars wrote: Question is, what is Musk's net effect communicating he is leaving a symbolic council while flying around on his private jet. I disagree with LegalLord on the Paris agreement, but agree that [Ted Cruz is] not wrong. The billionaires who quit the "rent seeking committee" certainly aren't anything special by any stretch of the imagination. One of them is more upset about the federal subsidies he wanted to line his pockets, and the other is as he said a symbolic gesture. Doesn't make Musk a bad apple and doesn't mean liberals need to do anything to "prove it's about science". Criticizing his private jet is just nitpicking at the margins. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10126 Posts
On June 03 2017 01:51 Danglars wrote: This idiotic beyond levels and you know it. It's kindergarden rhetoric. The reason why people has concluded x in the first place is because there is a scientific consensus around the issue. Is it debatable ? Yes, as anything in science, but then bring scientific facts into the table and not an emotional rambling about the symbolic value to feel entitled to be against the Paris accord rather than to have the conversation you pretend to want to have but you really don't want to.This is part of the reason I linked a fairly reasoned article concluding that it's likely the last step and people that think otherwise are fooling themselves. What's rich and deep is your deflection and misdirection while claiming others do so. I wonder if it will ever sink it that inattention to counterarguments isn't sufficient to restate your primary argument. I conclude x, and any articles that conclude otherwise are obvious misdirection. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 03 2017 01:56 LegalLord wrote: The way I see it, the most important link in the Paris Accords and why I put so much stock into it is not as much the US as it is China. Sure, first worlders will get greedy and attempt to skirt the regulations to the extent that it is possible. But China is notorious for dragging their feet something fierce, almost unwilling to even acknowledge that climate change is a problem worth addressing. Yet China finally started to "get it" and have made efforts to (albeit slowly) reduce their carbon footprint. The US will, as it always has, move slowly. The writing on the wall suggests that it's not economically feasible to skimp on climate forever. It still looks stupid though. Please. The Paris Accords were a boon to China. Built-in comparative advantages and subsidies afforded to the Chinese with no enforcement mechanism to ensure that the Chinese meet their own obligations? Yeah, that's a tough one for the Chinese to accept.... | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
You know, that reminds me of one funny story of a friend I had who was for some reason really strongly into effective recycling. He wrote a speech on the problems with paper recycling - the de-inking process, reprocessing of the paper, and how it all made the entire aspect of recycling paper worse than worthless. He managed to undermine a few recycling communities by going to their meetings and reciting his speech, causing most of the members to quit. As I've said before, though, the real journey to reducing emissions starts not with feel-good "green" technologies, but forcing companies to clean up the emissions they produce. Internalize their externalities with strict emission controls and carbon recovery requirements. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On June 03 2017 01:58 LegalLord wrote: By moving around the emissions in such a way that the cars his company produces (on the back of billions of dollars subsidies) don't emit while driving? Or his solar company that is a scam? I'm surprised SpaceX isn't trying to peddle being green yet. Yes, electric cars and solar roofs are green. Yes, Musk is making progress that no one else is making. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 03 2017 01:59 Nyxisto wrote: International agreements aren't toothless or symbolic just because there is no sovereign to enforce them. They function by holding nations to their word, nobody wants to be a pariah within the international community because they constantly violate international agreements. The US should know the effectiveness of this because it has more or less justified every single one of their military adventures in recent years, and it is what enabled Trump to take action against Assad, because the international consensus on chemical weapons is another such agreement. No way of enforcing an agreement is the absolute gold standard of describing an agreement as toothless or symbolic. See how much "holding nations to their word" because "nobody wants to be a pariah" affected Trump in his decision today. See North Korea, or the former Soviet Union, or Israel, or Palestine. | ||
|
Trainrunnef
United States599 Posts
On June 03 2017 01:57 Buckyman wrote: Once again, you're putting optics ahead of results. You're also cherrypicking positive results, What about the Wyoming bill proposed by republicans that would have banned utilities from using large scale renewable energy sources. The bill died, but it is proof that there are republicans who still deny and actively attempt to obstruct the development of renewable resources. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15687 Posts
On June 03 2017 02:07 Godwrath wrote: This idiotic beyond levels and you know it. It's kindergarden rhetoric. The reason why people has concluded x in the first place is because there is a scientific consensus around the issue. Is it debatable ? Yes, as anything in science, but then bring scientific facts into the table and not an emotional rambling about the symbolic value to feel entitled to be against the Paris accord rather than to have the conversation you pretend to want to have but you really don't want to. I think this is something that means something very different to people who don't work in science. When a scientist says they are 90% sure of something, that is equivalent to someone working in another industry saying "I am downright fucking certain". As scientists, we are always modest about certainty to the point of absurdity. A good example is how people will say "evolution is just a theory" ignoring the fact that "theory" means something entirely different in the science world. I don't think I've said I was certain of something in the past 5 years at work. But my opinions, conclusions and whatnot are always acted on because it is statistically a good idea. | ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
On June 03 2017 02:04 Danglars wrote: You quote a paragraph in the middle of the article that follows from the argumentation in the paragraphs preceding. Pay special attention to the political interest and comparison between changing direction in inches when different outcomes are miles apart. I did read it, and I don't necessarily disagree with your point that symbolic gestures are meaningless if there's no plan for follow through. But it seems that he (and you) are starting on the assumption that there will be no follow through, and as a result, this gesture is meaningless. If it were up to many of us, there would but a more expedited and stringent framework for follow through. But when we have to continually argue internally about whether or not we even have to do anything about the problem (or, in some cases, whether the problem even exists), that significantly slows down the capacity for follow through. So, I guess my question to you is - what should be done to make it (any plan, not necessarily Paris) less symbolic and actually effective? | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 03 2017 02:07 xDaunt wrote: Please. The Paris Accords were a boon to China. Built-in comparative advantages and subsidies afforded to the Chinese with no enforcement mechanism to ensure that the Chinese meet their own obligations? Yeah, that's a tough one for the Chinese to accept.... Then what do we need? A stronger deal? A symbolic withdrawal from the commitment as a means of protest? A show of "two can play at that game" and an unwillingness to reduce emissions? While I'm skeptical of a lot of aspects of the deal, even this is a big deal compared to the attitude China had towards this as recently as five years ago which could be effectively summarized as "fuck the environment that shit don't matter to us." | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On June 03 2017 02:11 Danglars wrote: No way of enforcing an agreement is the absolute gold standard of describing an agreement as toothless or symbolic. See how much "holding nations to their word" because "nobody wants to be a pariah" affected Trump in his decision today. See North Korea, or the former Soviet Union, or Israel, or Palestine. North Korea is isolated, the Soviet Union doesn't exist any more and Palestine is in a miserable state too, constantly having damaged their position on the world stage by ruining their reputation within the international community. Those are not great examples. Sure the US are a big and powerful country but they're losing their international position with this. No global leader has ever isolated themselves and come out better at the other end, it usually signifies a period of decline. No nation is special, the US isn't immune to bad decisions even if some subset of the voters apparently thinks that this is true. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 03 2017 02:11 Doodsmack wrote: Yes, electric cars and solar roofs are green. Yes, Musk is making progress that no one else is making. No one else is making an unviable variant of solar panels that goes on the roof? No one else is making electric cars? No one else manages to attract as much unwarranted hype to feed his massive ego? What progress is Musk making that no one else is? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 03 2017 02:09 Nyxisto wrote: The moralisation of the issue is typical. People who make perfectly valid points are attacked on irrelevant personal grounds. If some person would actually manage to talk sense into the American right on the issue of climate change I'd not care if they drive a monster truck to work. The individual contribution of Musk or anybody else is irrelevant, it doesn't touch the systemic problems. It's an important bulwark against accusations that you won't practice what you preach or want to make rules for others to live by that you don't want to abide by for yourself. We must all make sacrifices to fight climate change, particularly your job in the coal industry, but don't ask me to give up my private jet for cross-continent vacations (and don't worry, I'll give a ten-minute speech there in support of climate change action). | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 03 2017 02:15 LegalLord wrote: Then what do we need? A stronger deal? A symbolic withdrawal from the commitment as a means of protest? A show of "two can play at that game" and an unwillingness to reduce emissions? While I'm skeptical of a lot of aspects of the deal, even this is a big deal compared to the attitude China had towards this as recently as five years ago which could be effectively summarized as "fuck the environment that shit don't matter to us." China is going to get its own shit in order regardless of the Paris Accord because its people are tired of living in filth. But if you're going to bother with a treaty, then it needs an enforcement mechanism. | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
Online Event
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
