A Great Summary of Why the UNCCC has Failed

[TimG]

A good dissection of the green movement here (as represented by Al Gore):

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/27/the-failure-of-al-gore-part-deux/

The green movement’s core tactic is not to “hide the decline” or otherwise to cook the books of science. Its core tactic to cloak a comically absurd, impossibly complex and obviously impractical political program in the authority of science. Let anyone attack the cretinous and rickety construct of policies, trade-offs, offsets and bribes by which the greens plan to govern the world economy in the twenty first century, and they attack you as an anti-science bigot.

To argue with these people about science is to miss the core point. Even if the science is exactly as Mr. Gore claims, his policies are still useless. His advocacy is still a distraction. The movement he heads is still a ship of fools.

He summarizes the hurdles that any climate action compaigner need to meet before there can be any meaningful discussion of climate policy:

To make the case for a proposition like this, one needs to make the following argument: that the cost of inaction is unacceptably high, that the proposed measures are both feasible and effective, and that there are no easier or cheaper methods of accomplishing the goal. This is no special set of high hurdles invented for the purpose of frustrating the greens; it is the basic test that any proposal in any arena must pass.

In the global warming debate, this involves arguing first that the evidence for rapid and destructive climate change is rock solid, second that the global green agenda can be put into place and will work if it is, and third that there are no less costly, less intrusive or more workable alternative policies to the green agenda as it is now understood.

For me the question of climate policy comes down to the last two questions. I have yet to see any green plan that has a chance of working given the global political and economic realities.

[WIP]

A good dissection of the green movement here (as represented by Al Gore):

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/27/the-failure-of-al-gore-part-deux/

He summarizes the hurdles that any climate action compaigner need to meet before there can be any meaningful discussion of climate policy:

For me the question of climate policy comes down to the last two questions. I have yet to see any green plan that has a chance of working given the global political and economic realities.

Here we go with the Al Gore Strawman again! Did you notice that even this rightwing report notes the fact that Gore's latest interview in Rolling Stone is in the back pages, and not featured as a cover story? So what does that tell you? Perhaps that Al Gore is not taken seriously by real environmentalists, who realize that more drastic action has to be taken to stop increasing greenhouse gas levels! If Al Gore's green plan is too radical and too inconvenient for mr. moneybags here, he wouldn't want to hear from those of us who want carbon taxes applied to carbon intensive industries and products. Surviving climate change is going to be costly whether we take decisive action or continue to do nothing. I noticed that this clown seems to be sweating a bit about the extreme weather of late that has done billions of dollars in damage:

Despite terrible weather, despite tornadoes, droughts, food crises and high oil prices, the world conversation has moved on. The question is why.

Yeah, he's moving on like that clown climate change denier Steve King is moving on: ‘Unprecedented’ Flood Of Missouri River ‘Couldn’t Have Been Anticipated’

Well, as Thinkprogress notes, scientists have been trying to warn the public that we would start feeling the impact of a changing climate for years now, it's only a surprise to these idiots who were living in denial! Storm Warnings: Extreme Weather Is a Product of Climate Change More violent and frequent storms, once merely a prediction of climate models, are now a matter of observation. Part 1 of a three-part series

Surprise! It's here and hitting us in the pocketbook already, while you guys were bitching about how much it would cost to phase out oil and coal.

[August1991]

Watermelons. Too many watermelons.

[WIP]

Watermelons. Too many watermelons.

I make no apologies for my verdict on modern neoliberal capitalism, which you obviously consider more important than the survival of the next generations.

[bush_cheney2004]

I make no apologies for my verdict on modern neoliberal capitalism, which you obviously consider more important than the survival of the next generations.

Yea...along with several billion other people. Their "verdict" is also in.

[TimG]

Here we go with the Al Gore Strawman again!

It would help if you actually read the article before trotting out alarmist talking points. The article is about the intellectual bankruptcy of the environmental movement as represented by Al Gore. The criticism apply even if you sweep Gore under the rug because no environmental leader has actually repudiated the ideas that Gore espouses.

Surviving climate change is going to be costly whether we take decisive action or continue to do nothing. I noticed that this clown seems to be sweating a bit about the extreme weather of late that has done billions of dollars in damage:

Of course you forget that the science behind such reports is dubious at best. You also forget that even if the science is realistic the environmental must show that their "solutions" are likely to work. So far they have failed to do that resort to ad hom attacks on people who dare to question the efficacy of the policies. The comparison to the "treaty to end wars" was apt. Edited June 28, 2011 by TimG

[WIP]

It would help if you actually read the article before trotting out alarmist talking points. The article is about the intellectual bankruptcy of the environmental movement as represented by Al Gore. The criticism apply even if you sweep Gore under the rug because no environmental leader has actually repudiated the ideas that Gore espouses.

Well, how about James Hansen of NASA for one. Hansen has spoken out repeatedly in favour of taxing carbon, and criticized caps and trading schemes as too easy to corrupt or subvert to effectively change energy use and shift from fossil fuels to renewables.

Of course you forget that the science behind such reports is dubious at best.

Weather Underground2010 - 2011: Earth's most extreme weather since 1816?

It's all just a coincidence!

You also forget that even if the science is realistic the environmental must show that their "solutions" are likely to work. So far they have failed to do that resort to ad hom attacks on people who dare to question the efficacy of the policies. The comparison to the "treaty to end wars" was apt.

NO! That would only be the case if there was no tangible evidence for climate change. The case to do something, especially to take actions that cause economic loss for some (such as taxing the externalized costs of burning fossil fuels), is already made because we have unfortunately already hit the point where the increasing amount of moisture and energy available for causing storms is costing more than the costs of doing nothing.

[eyeball]

I have yet to see any green plan that has a chance of working given the global political and economic realities.

Do you honestly believe ANY plan has a chance of working given the global political and economic realities?