Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« March 2008 »
S M T W T F S
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Misc.
Poker
Politics
Religion
Television
Sleepless in Fulham: Rambling and gambling by David Young
Tuesday, 4 March 2008
An attack on Global Warming from the left.
Topic: Politics

I've expressed scepticism about Global Warming before and been criticised for it. Part of the reason for this is that I'm known to be fairly right-wing and thus might be considered biased towards businesses whose profits come at the expense of the destruction of the environment. There is little I can do to reject this. I am not a corporation basher. I want businesses to create wealth and to prosper and I accept that some damage to the environment may be needed for this.

So perhaps readers might find it more interesting to read an attack on the theory of man-made Global Warming from someone who is a corporation basher, someone indeed whose views on most things are the polar opposite to mine (Iraq, Israel etc). Step forward Alexander Cockborn (brother of Patrick, who writes in the Independent). He is co-editor of a magazine called Counterpunch, which puts some of its content online. He's a long way to the left of me and indeed of most people. Here, for instance, he describes the rating agency Moodys as 'terrorists'!

It's therefore interesting that we both share intense scepticism about the theory of man-made Global Warming. In a recent book review on Spiked, he argues that the left's embrace of Global Warming alarmism is a consequence of:

"the decline of the left, and the decline of the left’s optimistic vision of altering the economic nature of things through a political programme. The left has bought into environmental catastrophism because it thinks that if it can persuade the world that there is indeed a catastrophe, then somehow the emergency response will lead to positive developments in terms of social and environmental justice."

Bingo! When the command economies of the former Soviet Union and its satellite states collapsed and their failure to match the living standards of the West was exposed, the left had to change the nature of its attack on capitalism. So from claiming that capitalism could not create and distribute wealth as effectively as socialism, many on the left switched to claiming that it did so too effectively - wrecking the planet in the endless quest to provide the proletiariat with bottled water, patio heaters and holidays on low-cost airlines.

Cockburn wants to save the left from this dangerous embrace and fears perhaps rightly, that Global Warming alarmism will be used by western corporations to cripple competition from developing countries - a terrible disaster for the poor. On this one issue at least, I am in complete agreement.


_ DY at 1:24 AM GMT
Updated: Tuesday, 4 March 2008 1:32 AM GMT
Post Comment | View Comments (6) | Permalink

Wednesday, 5 March 2008 - 4:53 PM GMT

Name: "anonymous"

I've expressed scepticism about Global Warming before and been criticised for it. Part of the reason for this is that I'm known to be fairly right-wing and thus might be considered biased towards businesses whose profits come at the expense of the destruction of the environment.

No, it's because you use the internet to trawl for articles that match your world view.

But, as you say, you are no scientist.

Wednesday, 5 March 2008 - 6:38 PM GMT

Name: "David Young"

I read Alexander Cockburn from time to time precisely because he doesn't share my world view.

Wednesday, 5 March 2008 - 8:12 PM GMT

Name: "anonymous"

At least you do believe in global warming, regardless of its root cause.

Cylic or anthropic, anybody over the age of 35 will have noticed that the winters are warmer, spring starts earlier and summer lasts longer.

Throughout the globe, unusual and unseasonal weather is reported, almost everyday.

Weather systems have changed. It is now a matter of determining how it will affect countries and the global economy.

A 6C rise will be wonderful for the English Rivierre. The same rise for an already parched Australia, Africa and South Western US will send millions migrating.

Farmers at the base of the Rockies, the Alps, the Himalayas and the Andes rely on glacial melt water to irrigate their farms. Glacial retreat will be a disaster for such farmers. You can add water wars to your oil wars.

Deforestation in favour of palm and soy is a disaster. It rids the planet of valuable carbon sinks. It creates a mono-culture world populated solely by man and his pet animals. It creates competition between food crops and fuel crops thus starving the poor who can no longer be fed with cheap food or UN aid.

Unrestrained economic growth is not sustainable and will always be a lot more than "some damage to the environment may be needed for this". Year on year damage has left humanity on a precipice. Not the Earth, the Earth will pick itself up after humanity has gone.

It's not the trees I'm hugging, nor soft cuddly animals. It's the humans that could do with a hug. I'd like a  sustainable human race of 1.5 billion people because that is all this planet can handle. That's if you want all 1.5 billion to live as you do rather than have the globalists making slaves of so many starving, penniless, homeless billions who see the lifestyle adverts and head to the west for their slice of the pie and to enter your demography woes.

Thursday, 6 March 2008 - 11:28 AM GMT

Name: "roGER"
Home Page: http://rogers-rants.blogspot.com/

My problem with the right's view of global warming is that until recently most right wing commentators were in denial about the entire phenomenon.

So far the pattern has been this:

1) Deny that there is such a thing as global warming - it's all a scam against capitalism. This view has now almost entirely disappeared, as the evidence for global warming is overwhelming. But it was common throughout the 1990s and before.

2) Deny that humanity is at all responsible for global warming - it's simply a natural occurance as climate isn't a fixed thing. This is roughly the position of most of the right at the moment.

Assuming the right is wrong about 2) then there are a couple of different ways they could go if they accept it's humanity's fault.

3A) There's nothing we can do about it. Melaine Philips, always obnoxious as well as scientifically illiterate, has made this argument which rests on the idea that the UK only contributes about 1%-2% to global warming and that therefore we should ignore the whole thing and leave it to the Chinese/Indians/Americans/whomever to cut back on their emissions while we do nothing. 

3B) We'll engineer our way out of it. This seems the current view of President Bush and some of the more progressive right wingers such as John McCain. I have some sympathy for this view, as I cannot see how reducing levels of consumption can ever be a viable long term solution in any democratic society. Furthermore we don't know what solutions might be discovered unless we look for them.

I must admit I too was a global warming skeptic for many years, mainly because as a child of the 1970s I'd grown up with a constant barrage of predictions about the oil running out, commodities being exhausted, energy crises etc etc, all of which turned out to be completely wrong!

My current position is this.

If global warming theory is correct and humanity is responsible, then it's up to us to change and invent in order to stop or mitigate it's effects and we ought to do this now.

If the theory is wrong, then all we've done is distort our energy production methods for a decade or two, which can then be corrected through normal market mechanisms. We may have usefully boosted the development rate of existing technologies such as wind turbines and solar panels - that's hardly a disaster is it?

Friday, 7 March 2008 - 10:10 AM GMT

Name: "anonymous"

My current position is this.

If global warming theory is correct and humanity is responsible, then it's up to us to change and invent in order to stop or mitigate it's effects and we ought to do this now.

If the theory is wrong, then all we've done is distort our energy production methods for a decade or two, which can then be corrected through normal market mechanisms. We may have usefully boosted the development rate of existing technologies such as wind turbines and solar panels - that's hardly a disaster is it?

 

There is a third position, which David espouses, that there is global warming but it is not man-made. 

There have been "warm periods" and "mini-ice ages" throughout human history. Being pre-industrial they were not man-made but they did cause societal and economic collapse or difficulty and migrations.

David's attitude to undoubted climate change is "I don't care if the world is warming and I'm going to be contrary just to prove some intellectual point to make myself look good."

In a globalised economy, based on just in time resource allocation, industrialised food production and the mobilisation of all the world's resources, humanity is susceptible to any change from the norm.

Wait and see is not an option because it will be too late. Changing the world from a carbon economy to another economy has many benefits. It negates dependence on the mid-east, it protects us from climate change, should it be proven to be man-made, it creates new technologies and jobs. Also, reducing the world population means there is more for the remiander to live upon equally.

Sunday, 9 March 2008 - 11:33 AM GMT

Name: "anonymous"

Cockburn wants to save the left from this dangerous embrace and fears perhaps rightly, that Global Warming alarmism will be used by western corporations to cripple competition from developing countries - a terrible disaster for the poor. On this one issue at least, I am in complete agreement.

Do you want to give an example of this?

China and India are leading the world in renewable technology and its use. Buy a solar water heater and it came from China. Eco-cities are being built in China.

India's Tata motors are preparing to build a cheap car running on compressed air. Recycling in India puts the UK to shame. India leads the world with power plants running on bio-mass gasification and methane production from waste.

It is the west that is being crippled by backward thinking. The west is still stuck in an oil-based economy. US motor manufacturers are lobbying US politicians to put the brakes on green innovation.

You need to research your topics a lot more accurately if you are to be taken seriously.

View Latest Entries