August1991 Posted February 25, 2016 Report Share Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) I had never heard of this. Climate Change is one thing but "Climate Justice"? WTF? I am suspicious of any collective "movement". (I reckon that "movements" should be individual and IME, they work best when they are private.) So, the idea of a Climate Justice Movement, to me, is the trifecta of limousine liberal craziness. As Woody Allen once said, "It'll be a big seller in California." Edited February 25, 2016 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 25, 2016 Report Share Posted February 25, 2016 Sounds like something out of the so-called social justice movement. Which ultimately will just be a vehicle for income redistribution, as usual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted February 25, 2016 Report Share Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) Well, if you accept the science in climate change, the idea of climate justice is really not hard at all. It means that there is no relationship between those who benefit from releasing GHG's and those who suffer the impacts. In fact, some of the regions of the earth that will be hardest hit by climate change and will likely lose most have released the lowest amounts. And unlike trade agreements that afford multi-national corporations preferential status when it comes to suing countries over (mostly imagined) losses due to laws, there is no mechanism for the billions of poor people who will suffer drought, displacement, flooding or other hardship to recoup their losses from wealthy countries, corporations and individuals who caused their suffering. Luckily for them, it seems like you have all the answers. So, please, tell us how climate refugees will, through "individual and private" movements get justice. Edited February 25, 2016 by Charles Anthony excessive quoting; deleted [Opening Post] Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 25, 2016 Report Share Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) It means that there is no relationship between those who benefit from releasing GHG's and those who suffer the impacts.This is self serving fiction created by the "climate justice" movement to rationalize their desire for income redistribution. A more honest appraisal of the evidence would conclude that wealthy societies are better able to protect their citizens from the weather so it follows that the impact of changes in the weather would be less noticeable in wealthier countries. Furthermore, the path to wealth requires the emission of fossil fuels which means there is a direct inverse relationship between the effects of climate change and the use of fossil fuels. It also means that the best way for poorer countries to protect themselves against climate change is to grow their economies via the use of whatever cost effective energy sources are available (which is mostly fossil fuels). there is no mechanism for the billions of poor people who will suffer drought, displacement, flooding or other hardship to recoup their losses from wealthy countries, corporations and individuals who caused their suffering.Sorry, this BS. People in wealthy countries are not to blame for poor countries that were unable to develop a modern economy because of their own cultural deficiencies. The rise of China over the last 20 years demonstrates how the global economic system is open to all that are able to contribute. Edited February 25, 2016 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 25, 2016 Report Share Posted February 25, 2016 People in wealthy countries are not to blame for poor countries that were unable to develop a modern economy because of their own cultural deficiencies. which, of course, fits with your failed premise that all any country has to do is simply adapt to ever rising temperatures, ever increasing atmospheric GHG levels and ever changing climate..... just keep on the fossil-fuel teet and simply spend whatever it takes to adapt - no worries! And if you're not, as you say, "developed enough... if you're a poor country", so sad - too bad! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted February 25, 2016 Report Share Posted February 25, 2016 The social justice warrior ideology spreads and tries to infect everything. Some people are incapable of justifying climate change mitigation policy based on science and economics alone. So they have to appeal to SJWism to justify it. Some how climate change disproportionately harms women, disabled people, transpeople and 'people of colour'. Therefore, we have to stop it. Makes perfect sense... They are in the same category as the people that try to justify their position on climate change using the bible or the quran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 25, 2016 Report Share Posted February 25, 2016 Some how climate change disproportionately harms women, disabled people, transpeople and 'people of colour'. Therefore, we have to stop it. citation request . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted February 25, 2016 Report Share Posted February 25, 2016 http://ejfoundation.org/gallery/most-vulnerable-climate-change "Most vulnerable to climate change Women, children, the elderly, ethnic minorities, marginalised communities and those with disabilities are disproportionately affected by the negative impacts of climate change. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 25, 2016 Report Share Posted February 25, 2016 The social justice warrior ideology spreads and tries to infect everything. Some people are incapable of justifying climate change mitigation policy based on science and economics alone. So they have to appeal to SJWism to justify it. Some how climate change disproportionately harms women, disabled people, transpeople and 'people of colour'. Therefore, we have to stop it. Well... you know, men can take their shirts off in public and women usually can't, so they can adapt to higher temperatures. And disabled people can't run away from the rising waters fast enough to avoid drowning. And people of color mostly live around the equator where the temperatures are hottest. So there. Disproportionately affected! Straight white males, on the other hand, are immune to climate change... the sun reflects off their white skin so they can reduce the radiative forcing they experience at will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted February 25, 2016 Report Share Posted February 25, 2016 which, of course, fits with your failed premise that all any country has to do is simply adapt to ever rising temperatures, ever increasing atmospheric GHG levels and ever changing climate..... just keep on the fossil-fuel teet and simply spend whatever it takes to adapt - no worries! And if you're not, as you say, "developed enough... if you're a poor country", so sad - too bad! The science journal Nature just published a piece by Nicholas Stern of the London School of Economics which says that we are simultaneously underestimating the costs of climate change and overestimating the costs of switching to renewable energy. Essentially, it reported on a body of literature that had systematically and grossly underestimated the risks of unmanaged climate change. Furthermore, that literature had failed to capture the learning processes and economies of scale involved in radical structural and technical change, and the benefits of reducing fossil-fuel pollution, protecting biodiversity and forests, and so on. Furthermore, many of the largest potential impacts are omitted, such as widespread conflict as a result of large-scale human migration to escape the worst-affected areas. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted February 25, 2016 Report Share Posted February 25, 2016 Well... you know, men can take their shirts off in public and women usually can't, so they can adapt to higher temperatures. And disabled people can't run away from the rising waters fast enough to avoid drowning. And people of color mostly live around the equator where the temperatures are hottest. So there. Disproportionately affected! Straight white males, on the other hand, are immune to climate change... the sun reflects off their white skin so they can reduce the radiative forcing they experience at will. But, you forget, air-conditioners are sexist: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11780891/Air-conditioning-in-your-office-is-sexist.-True-story.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted February 25, 2016 Report Share Posted February 25, 2016 The science journal Nature just published a piece by Nicholas Stern of the London School of Economics which says that we are simultaneously underestimating the costs of climate change and overestimating the costs of switching to renewable energy. I'll take Nicholas Stern seriously when he uses a reasonable discount rate that satisfies the Ramsey equation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2016 This is self serving fiction created by the "climate justice" movement to rationalize their desire for income redistribution. No, I suspect that this is a way for some people in rich countries to signal that they are "virtuous". They also drive a small car, or no car at all. But such people also fly to Europe. (Count: Any reader of this post, how many times have you flown to Europe. To Vancouver.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted February 25, 2016 Report Share Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) a piece by Nicholas Stern of the London School of Economics which says that we are simultaneously underestimating the costs of climate change and overestimating the costs of switching to renewable energy.Well, I know his analysis garbage because he thinks it is actually economically plausible to switch to renewable energy given the technology available to us today. Get back to me when does the math taking into account the cost of all of the fossil fuel back up generators needed to keep the 'all renewable' grid functioning. Edited February 25, 2016 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.