Copenhagen and Canada - it'll Devastate us

[eyeball]

The vast consensus among development theorists, political scientists, and historians agree that European colonialism of Africa, Asia, and Latin America (ie: developing countries) was by far the #1 factor in the underdevelopment (economic, social, and political) and political instability of third world countries. So Europeans of particular countries are greatly at fault, though whether their currently living descendants spread across the globe should be held responsible in any way for this is obviously debatable.

Oh c'mon now, everybody knows the root cause of their problems really stem from their unwillingness to adopt our ways, accept Jesus as their lord and saviour, work hard and....ummmm...oh yeah...love our freedom.

[bush_cheney2004]

The vast consensus among development theorists, political scientists, and historians agree that European colonialism of Africa, Asia, and Latin America (ie: developing countries) was by far the #1 factor in the underdevelopment (economic, social, and political) and political instability of third world countries. So Europeans of particular countries are greatly at fault.....

Wait a minute....why do these "experts" ignore the colonial experience in Norte America, Australia, New Zealand, etc.

Theorists indeed!

[jbg]

Oh c'mon now, everybody knows the root cause of their problems really stem from their unwillingness to adopt our ways, accept Jesus as their lord and saviour, work hard and....ummmm...oh yeah...love our freedom.

Huh?

[Argus]

Ok, enough with the hearsay. Can you provide peer-reviewed scholarly sources for your claims? I can. I did a quick search on a local University online database portal of peer-reviewed scholarly journals. I entered keywords "global warming", "climate change", "droughts", "floods", "hurricanes", and here's 4 journal articles i quickly found. I will cite each work, followed by a copy of the entire abstract of the article (i'm obviously not going to copy & post the entire articles). Feel free to look them up yourself.

Pointless. No one denies that a changing climate can cause droughts and whatnot. The question is why the climate is changing - or even IF it is changing, and what to do about it. Some seem to feel the best thing to do is send vast sums of money to third world countries so their corrupt dictator leaders can funnel it back into their Swiss bank accounts.

The vast consensus among development theorists, political scientists, and historians agree that European colonialism of Africa, Asia, and Latin America (ie: developing countries) was by far the #1 factor in the underdevelopment (economic, social, and political) and political instability of third world countries. So Europeans of particular countries are greatly at fault, though whether their currently living descendants spread across the globe should be held responsible in any way for this is obviously debatable.

So let me get this straight. The Europeans, they were in these big sailing ships, with their guns and other "high tech" equipment, right, and they colonized Africa and Latin America because the locals were pretty much in mud huts waving stone spears around so weren't too hard to overcome...... uhm, why were the locals so far behind then? I mean, before colonialism? And if they were so far behind then, what makes you think that, barring colonialism, they would have all rushed forward to catch up to the Europeans, who were, of course, continuing to develop themselves?

Edited October 13, 2009 by Argus

[Moonlight Graham]

Wait a minute....why do these "experts" ignore the colonial experience in Norte America, Australia, New Zealand, etc.

Theorists indeed!

They do not ignore them. But there is a difference between them. What is the similarity in the former colonial states you just mentioned? They were permanently settled & colonized by white Europeans.

These colonies had the luxury of not having most of their resources exploited, sold and/or and exported because they (for the most part) had the support of their mother European metropoles. It's obviously much more complicated than this. Europeans obviously aren't responsible for every problem in third-world countries, but their meddling imperialism certainly put them on the wrong track, especially after the Industrial Revolution and the rise of the capitalism world economy.

Look at virtually any third-world/developing country on the map today. Almost every single one was formerly colonized by a European power during the last 500 years or so without permanent white European settlers controlling the country. (one exception would be China, although parts of it too were colonized by the British ie: Hong-Kong, Taiwan, but China also has had a better economic fate than most other developing countries)

[Moonlight Graham]

Pointless. No one denies that a changing climate can cause droughts and whatnot.

riverwind does.

...uhm, why were the locals so far behind then? I mean, before colonialism?

I can't 100% answer that. I suppose Europe was just more developed (economically, politically), better educated, more advanced technology, went through the "Enlightenment" period, led the Industrial Revolution. Comparing tribes of North American natives or Africans to European towns, cities etc., i guess Europeans just won the race. Thems the breaks? Heck ancient Rome had most of Africa & the Americas beat.

And if they were so far behind then, what makes you think that, barring colonialism, they would have all rushed forward to catch up to the Europeans, who were, of course, continuing to develop themselves?

I never said they would have caught to the Europeans, though it's reasonable to assume that without the exploitations of colonialism they would be further along that path today.

Here's some interesting reading for you that may answer some of your questions. Andre Gunder Frank, an important development theorist: "The Development of Underdevelopment"

[Riverwind]

There's my evidence of the "link between natural disasters and climate change". I'm sure i could probably find 500 similar articles easily.

And here is the counter argument:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009...ood-et-al-2009/

“Human activities have modified the environment for thousands of years. Significant population increase, migration, and accelerated socio-economic activities have intensified these environmental changes over the last several centuries. The climate impacts of these changes have been found in local, regional, and global trends in modern atmospheric temperature records and other relevant climatic indicators.”

In our conclusions, we write

“It is the regional responses, not a global average, that produce drought, floods and other societally important climate impacts.”

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publi...lkeEtAl2002.pdf

Our paper documents that land-use change impacts regional and global climate

through the surface-energy budget, as well as through the carbon cycle. The surfaceenergy

budget e¬ects may be more important than the carbon-cycle e¬ects. However,

land-use impacts on climate cannot be adequately quanti­ ed with the usual metric

of `global warming potential’.

Here is another:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/10/...st-drought.html

“The drought that caused so much trouble was pathetically normal and short, far less than what the climate system is capable of generating,” said lead author Richard Seager, a climate modeler at Lamont. “People were saying that this was a 100-year drought, but it was pretty run-of-the-mill. The problem is, in the last 10 years population has grown phenomenally, and hardly anyone, including the politicians, has been paying any attention.”

It really doesn't take journals though to see how warm temperatures affect the severity of weather.

AGW is expected to reduced the temperature differential between the poles and the equator. This will make it more difficult for storms to form in the first place. The science is fare from settled on this but the evidence is extremely clear that economic damages from weather related events are the result of social/political factors and not the severity of the event (Katrina was a CAT3 storm).

[Riverwind]

I never said they would have caught to the Europeans, though it's reasonable to assume that without the exploitations of colonialism they would be further along that path today.

Colonalism ended in 60 years ago which means the developing countries only have themselves to blame for the state they are in today. China is an interesting case because it clearly had the culture that could support a developed society but it choose to fritter that opportunity away by adopting a Communist system.

[bush_cheney2004]

They do not ignore them. But there is a difference between them. What is the similarity in the former colonial states you just mentioned? They were permanently settled & colonized by white Europeans.

These colonies had the luxury of not having most of their resources exploited, sold and/or and exported because they (for the most part) had the support of their mother European metropoles. It's obviously much more complicated than this....

Yes....it is much more complicated than the simple input variable of "colonialism". The Americas were an amalgam of colonialism, self determination, slave labor, and western liberalism, all elements that were available but not necessarily adopted in other "exploited" places in the world.

Passing judgement is meaningless, particularly if the very benchmark of "success" is the same European / New World standard. A bushman in Africa is not necessarily a failure or victim of colonialism.

Just the facts please...a la "Guns, Germs, and Steel".

Edited October 13, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[ToadBrother]

Colonalism ended in 60 years ago which means the developing countries only have themselves to blame for the state they are in today.

Political colonialism ended after the war. Economic colonialism almost certainly remained in many areas.

China is an interesting case because it clearly had the culture that could support a developed society but it choose to fritter that opportunity away by adopting a Communist system.

China was an enormous victim of colonialism. Read up on the Opium Wars and the Treaty Ports. The West (along with Japan, which managed during the Meiji period to build itself from a feudal into a major industrial power) raped China. At every turn they undermined its institutions and forced all manner of one-sided treaties upon it. Once that period began to come to an end, the US blindly gave its support to the Nationalists, ignoring its incompetence and cruelty. After the Japanese were finally tossed out, the Chinese people came to loathe Chiang Kai-shek so much that they quite willingly followed Mao and the Communists.

Was it a disaster, yes, it was. At the same time, China itself managed to rapidly industrialize, and once Mao had largely been sidelined after the horrors of the Great Leap Forward, China progressed very quickly. The Cultural Revolution was a setback, to be sure, but I'd say that after Mao's death and the Gang of Four were brought down, China has moved rapidly down the road to a major economic power. Of course, the country is scarcely communist any more, more of semi-benign autocracy run by the generation of technocrats that have all but replaced the last members of the Communist regime.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

We do in fact need a new world order. Of that there is no doubt. The problem is that we need a democratic model to do it. Not under the thumbs of politicians and corporations, but instead the citizens of the world.

[Riverwind]

China was an enormous victim of colonialism. Read up on the Opium Wars and the Treaty Ports. The West (along with Japan, which managed during the Meiji period to build itself from a feudal into a major industrial power) raped China.

You have just contradicted yourself. Japan was subject to the same intrusions and on sided trade deals but it was able to industrialize and take on the Europeans. That example alone demonstrates that China was not a helpless 'victim' of colonialism but rather the victim of is own despots. The world would be a very different place today if China had produced a Meiji emperor in the 1800s. Edited October 13, 2009 by Riverwind

[ToadBrother]

You have just contradicted yourself. Japan was subject to the same intrusions and on sided trade deals but it was able to industrialize and take on the Europeans. That example alone demonstrates that China was not a helpless 'victim' of colonialism but rather the victim of is own despots. The world would be a very different place today if China had produced a Meiji emperor in the 1800s.

Japan was never subjected to the same degree of abuses that China was. The key difference was that the Japanese were smart enough to basically close their ports (except for Nagasaki). They held on to the feudal system far too long, mind you, but the end of the Shogunate came in the nick of time for the Meiji Emperor to start bringing in foreign experts.

[Riverwind]

Japan was never subjected to the same degree of abuses that China was. The key difference was that the Japanese were smart enough to basically close their ports (except for Nagasaki). They held on to the feudal system far too long, mind you, but the end of the Shogunate came in the nick of time for the Meiji Emperor to start bringing in foreign experts.

The abuses were, in part, a direct result of the Chinese refusal to open trading relationships (i.e. Opimum provided the silver which the British needed to get around the Chinese ban on foreign trade). If the Chinese had opened their country to trade like the Meiji emperor did at the time it is likely that the Opium Wars would have never happened.

[ToadBrother]

The abuses were, in part, a direct result of the Chinese refusal to open trading relationships (i.e. Opimum provided the silver which the British needed to get around the Chinese ban on foreign trade). If the Chinese had opened their country to trade like the Meiji emperor did at the time it is likely that the Opium Wars would have never happened.

Japan had little choice but to open itself to trade after Perry began lobbing cannonballs in Tokyo harbor. What Japan did do that China didn't was to immediately set about building sufficient industrial and military capacity to make sure that Perry's stunt didn't become a regular event.

There was also the political capacity in Japan to make these decisions. China was in tougher shape by the 19th century, the Imperial office was at almost the polar opposite to the Meiji ascendancy. It really was a matter of timing. If Perry had arrived, say, a century earlier, perhaps Japan would have been in a similar position.

[dre]

If you sign up for the agreement but fail to meet your targets/obligations what is the penalty?

[Moonlight Graham]

Colonalism ended in 60 years ago which means the developing countries only have themselves to blame for the state they are in today.

It's not that simple. The effects of colonialism didn't just end magically when the Europeans left. There's plenty of blame to go around, for the West and certainly the developing countries themselves, along with circumstances that were out of everyone's control.

OPEC dramatically raised oil prices in the 1970's from $2 a barrel to $39. For oil-importing countries, especially poor ones, this was devastating.

The 1970's also saw huge amounts of lending to third world countries because interest rates were low, which helped many developing countries at the time. But shortly after, the U.S. and Western banks raised interest rates in order to try to end inflation. This led to some countries (Mexico, Brazil, Argentina) to default on their loans in 1982. Others had to take out new loans just to pay the interest on their former loans.

Third World countries have their own share of the blame. Poor gov't investments & decisions, war, brutal dictators. The whole underdevelopment situation is such a complex problem it's mind-boggling.

[Riverwind]

There's plenty of blame to go around, for the West and certainly the developing countries themselves, along with circumstances that were out of everyone's control.

Obviously these issues are complicated but I am only arguing against the extremist narrative that paints developing countries as helpless victims that are entitled to compensation from the countries that have created the wealth and technology which everyone now benefits from.

This is an interesting article that points out that developing countries have seen all measures of human welfare increase over the last century even if they lag the developed countries. These improvements in developing countries would have never occurred without the fossil fuel powered economies in the developed world producing the technology that the developing countries now depend on:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/12/link...-use-of-energy/

[Riverwind]

Japan had little choice but to open itself to trade after Perry began lobbing cannonballs in Tokyo harbor. What Japan did do that China didn't was to immediately set about building sufficient industrial and military capacity to make sure that Perry's stunt didn't become a regular event.

I think you just argue my point: Japan's success stems from the good choices it made when faced with western aggression.

China was in tougher shape by the 19th century, the Imperial office was at almost the polar opposite to the Meiji ascendancy.

When Mao consoldated power in the 50s he could have followed the same path but choose the route of demagogery and depositism.

[ToadBrother]

I think you just argue my point: Japan's success stems from the good choices it made when faced with western aggression.

Japan's successes were also based on luck. It was far more insulated for far longer than other Asian cultures from both the West and, just as importantly, from the Mongols (who did a lot to weaken these civilizations).

When Mao consoldated power in the 50s he could have followed the same path but choose the route of demagogery and depositism.

Mao actually tried to make overtures to the US after he booted Chiang Kai-shek out, but by this point, the whole "Better Dead than Red" hysteria was in full tilt and he had little choice but to go to the Soviets. I'm not defending Mao, who, very likely, was responsible for the largest single mass death in all of human history, but you're dangerously oversimplifying what happened in China, both during the era of the unbalanced treaties, and after the Communists chased the Nationalists off the mainland. And let's not forget here, the Nationalists' excesses were pretty much ignored by the West because Chiang Kai-shek was one of "our boys", a dictator on the right side of the Capitalism-Communism coin. I recall in Churchill, in his memoirs about WWII, talking about how the Americans had a very overly sympathetic and friendly view of the Generalissimo, which the Brits did not share.

[noahbody]

If you sign up for the agreement but fail to meet your targets/obligations what is the penalty?

Previous estimates were somewhere between 10 and 20 billion.

[eyeball]

I am still waiting for you to produce the source of the data for the G&M article. I have already given you stats from the Danish government that show electricity consumption has gone up 55% and I think it is extremely unlikely that other types of energy consumption have gone down 48% to compensate.

Until you produce those figures the G&M claim is not interesting.

I suspect you will dismiss this as out of hand as everything else that runs counter to your beliefs but for what its worth here is the response I got from Mr Mason at the Globe and Mail.

There are any number of articles that site these figures. But I ran them by the Danish environment minister just to be sure. They're accurate.

Your sources are often interesting enough but as usual I am still struck by the sheer number of scientists that are in agreement that anthropogenic climate change is a real concern. The desire of oil companies and related or associated vested interests to deny this is of course completely understandable and predictable. I have no doubt at least some or even most of the scientists that are skeptical are sincere but again compared to the sheer numbers of scientists who are not skeptical...what am I supposed to do? There is just to much at stake and I must in good conscience insist on and continue to vote for those parties that are most committed to applying a precautionary principle, even at the cost of harming our economy if need be.

I do have to say that the propensity of most skeptics to characterize just about anyone who refuses to share their beliefs as leftists, socialists, commies - the usual yadda yadda - only reinforces the impression that the root cause of their skepticism is no more based in science than the people they criticize. I'm afraid it just invalidates so much of what your trying to say that there's little left to do but lob the odd barb back in your faces.

[Riverwind]

I suspect you will dismiss this as out of hand as everything else that runs counter to your beliefs but for what its worth here is the response I got from Mr Mason at the Globe and Mail.

That that is rich. I gave you hard data from the Danish government that showed that electricity consumption went up 55%. Given that data any rational person would agree that the claim quite implausible. To your credit, when I pointed that out you did make an effort to find out the source of the data but all you got was a claim "it must be right because a Danish politician told me it was right".

I don't know about you but I generally do not make a habit of using politicians as a source of reliable statistical data.

Your sources are often interesting enough but as usual I am still struck by the sheer number of scientists that are in agreement that anthropogenic climate change is a real concern.

The entire catastropophic AGW hinges on the reliability of climate models are there are only a handful of scientists publishing in this field. The opinion of a scientist that has no special expertise in climate models is no more interesting that yours or mine.

The desire of oil companies and related or associated vested interests to deny this is of course completely understandable and predictable.

The bigger concern right now is the huge vested interest of the various bureacrats, scientists and carbon traders that would be out of work if AGW was not a problem that required immediate action. This introduces a bias into the selection of research that has been documented many times. Do you really believe that scientists are some special class of human being that is not motivated by self-interest?

I have no doubt at least some or even most of the scientists that are skeptical are sincere but again compared to the sheer numbers of scientists who are not skeptical.

So what? The academic culture has been poisoned by politics. Many praticing scientists are forced to express support for AGW as defined by the IPCC because being a sceptic is a career killer. It is no coincidence that most sceptical scientists are tenured or retired.

I was not always a sceptic. I become one once I took the time to understand the science itself and the nature of the evidence that supports the claims. I was surprised to find out how flimsy the evidence really is and how tunnel vision and funding constraints have made the majority of scientists in the field blind to alternative ideas. That said, I don't reject the basic premise that adding CO2 causes the the temps to go up. I only feel that the real data that has been collected over the last decade or so is sufficient to cast doubt on the claims and that we can afford to wait another decade to see if the AGW claims have been exagerrated.

...what am I supposed to do?

Try thinking for yourself and stop assuming that people that happen to advocate policies which you like are doing so because those policies make sense.

There is just to much at stake and I must in good conscience insist on and continue to vote for those parties that are most committed to applying a precautionary principle, even at the cost of harming our economy if need be.

I believe you are hypocrite because you talk grandly of the need to force other people to make sacrifices in the name of this hypothetical problem but I am sure you would have a long list of excuses why you should not have to make those sacrifices yourself. For example, increasing the cost of energy will cause many industries to shutdown and it would discourage new ones from starting. Would you be willing to permentally give up any prospect of employment in to 'save the world'. Would you be willing to live on the street once the government is forced to start cutting social programs?

I realize you will claim that I am exagratting but you can't deny that it is a plausible outcome of the policies you advocate. By your our logic the precautionary principal should apply here too.

I do have to say that the propensity of most skeptics to characterize just about anyone who refuses to share their beliefs as leftists, socialists, commies

Again by saying that you demonstrate that you are as close minded as the people you criticize.

In any case, I would support rational policies that are designed to actually reduce the total amount of CO2 emitted. This would include investment in R&D to find the necessary technologies and the assistance deploying technologies was it is clear that they are potentially economic. I could also support a carbon tax if structured in a way that recognizes regional differences. I cannot support any form of cap and trade because all of the evidence indicates that such systems are a recipe for corruption. I also do not support any sort emissions targets because they are nothing more than fantasies until we find the economic non-emitting alternatives.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

Yes but still...The Danes use about the same amount of energy today as they did in 1980. But over that same period of time, the country's economy has grown by 70 per cent.

I don't believe your figures.

This report indicates that Danish Electricity consumption has increased 55% since 1980.

http://www.ens.dk/da-DK/Info/TalOgKort/Sta...202007%20uk.pdf

you state "consumption"... your linked to reference is "production". The Danes export a significant amount of the electricity they produce.....

in any case, a second source to corroborate the G&M article touting Danish energy efficiency:

As a result of the measures designed to make the economy more energy efficient, Denmark’s energy intensity per unit of GDP in 2007 was 40% less than in 1980. During this time, total energy consumption had increased by just 7.4%, while the Danish economy had grown by 78%.

[eyeball]

That that is rich. I gave you hard data from the Danish government that showed that electricity consumption went up 55%. Given that data any rational person would agree that the claim quite implausible. To your credit, when I pointed that out you did make an effort to find out the source of the data but all you got was a claim "it must be right because a Danish politician told me it was right".

I have to admit I felt a little let down alright. As for consumption it seems you're still fixated on electricity as opposed to energy but so be it.

I don't know about you but I generally do not make a habit of using politicians as a source of reliable statistical data.

Its even worse for me, I'm incapable of trusting just about anything that virtually any politician or government says. Given what you've just said about not using politicians as a source I fail to see why you would trust the same government the politicians you distrust are associated with - I'm a hypocrite? If you say so.

The entire catastropophic AGW hinges on the reliability of climate models are there are only a handful of scientists publishing in this field. The opinion of a scientist that has no special expertise in climate models is no more interesting that yours or mine.

Well, I think it also hinges on developing trends and a bit of common sense but I think we're pretty much screwed no matter what we do. The worst effect of all is probably the deteriorating civility and polarization the issue is cultivating. I think things will continue to worsen to the point of violence, but it will probably be our grandkids that are left with nothing to do but shoot it out with each other over the dregs.