Climate Change Denial

[CyberGus]

And the best for a corporation to please the shareholders is to please the customers! If the customers are not pleased, how can shareholders be pleased with that? You think a loss of revenue will please the shareholders? You did not think that through too well did you!

Trevor Milton made himself a billionaire without any customers at all.

 

[ohmman]

Trevor Milton made himself a billionaire without any customers at all.

It's mostly about the length of the feedback loop. If we realize instantly that the company/person/behavior is harmful or against our best intentions, we adapt quickly. "The Free Market" (there has never been any such thing) responds well to this. However, when you extend the feedback loop a year, two years, ten years, and more.. well, humans aren't cut out for that kind of forward thinking. There is plenty of proof for this, the easiest is looking at debt, diet, drinking, and smoking behavior. We prioritize today much more than tomorrow, and tomorrow much more than a decade in the future.

The idea that a free market exists is already antiquated. The idea that "The Free Market" adapts to consumer behavior in an efficient manner is laughable even in the most libertarian of circles. This isn't an opinion or idea, it's easily validated. The ideology of the "free market" ignores what economists and psychologists have learned over the last 50 years, because it's a lot easier to adhere to an ideology with black and white than to acknowledge nuance.

The biggest problem with climate change action is that the feedback loop is too long. Today's airline flight has some vague impact on tomorrow's issues. If airplanes crashed instantly, killing the number of people that their emissions might eventually, I bet we'd make changes rapidly.

 

[SDRick]

ohmman, nice analogy with the different speeds of feedback loops and the need to look farther out in the future.

The greater the population coupled with the accelerating pace of technological change makes forward thinking imperative. The question becomes what "market" or "system" can best address these challenges?

 

[mspohr]

ohmman, nice analogy with the different speeds of feedback loops and the need to look farther out in the future.

The greater the population coupled with the accelerating pace of technological change makes forward thinking imperative. The question becomes what "market" or "system" can best address these challenges?

Certainly not the "free" market. It continues to be a complete failure.
How about more government regulation, guidance, control? Socialism!

 

[Texas Electric]

Certainly not the "free" market. It continues to be a complete failure.
How about more government regulation, guidance, control? Socialism!

That has already been done. And was, and still is a dismal failure.

 

[Texas Electric]

It's mostly about the length of the feedback loop. If we realize instantly that the company/person/behavior is harmful or against our best intentions, we adapt quickly. "The Free Market" (there has never been any such thing) responds well to this. However, when you extend the feedback loop a year, two years, ten years, and more.. well, humans aren't cut out for that kind of forward thinking. There is plenty of proof for this, the easiest is looking at debt, diet, drinking, and smoking behavior. We prioritize today much more than tomorrow, and tomorrow much more than a decade in the future.

The idea that a free market exists is already antiquated. The idea that "The Free Market" adapts to consumer behavior in an efficient manner is laughable even in the most libertarian of circles. This isn't an opinion or idea, it's easily validated. The ideology of the "free market" ignores what economists and psychologists have learned over the last 50 years, because it's a lot easier to adhere to an ideology with black and white than to acknowledge nuance.

The biggest problem with climate change action is that the feedback loop is too long. Today's airline flight has some vague impact on tomorrow's issues. If airplanes crashed instantly, killing the number of people that their emissions might eventually, I bet we'd make changes rapidly.

Mr Moderator, I think you are getting into the “free will” vs. “determinism” argument. I think it is quite apparent which side you are on.

 

[nwdiver]

That has already been done. And was, and still is a dismal failure.

Really? What pushed solar from $100/w to <$10/w. Sure wasn't the free market.... at least not on its own.

 

[mspohr]

That has already been done. And was, and still is a dismal failure.

The Nordic social democratic countries are doing well.
The US is a mess.

 

[mspohr]

 

[DrLOAC]

 

[ohmman]

The greater the population coupled with the accelerating pace of technological change makes forward thinking imperative. The question becomes what "market" or "system" can best address these challenges?

Good question, and I'm not sure there's a simple answer. My guess is that initially we just have to be supportive of government putting their "thumb on the scale" (recognizing that there are many, many thumbs already all over the scale) to attempt to internalize these long range external costs. With climate change, some kind of forward looking pricing for carbon and other GHGs priced into actions today would be a start.

Mr Moderator, I think you are getting into the “free will” vs. “determinism” argument. I think it is quite apparent which side you are on.

I certainly would try to avoid a simplistic binary argument such as that. Issues like these are on a continuum. There is no "side." That kind of thinking leans heavily on heuristic, which is often the path to being wrong. I am merely pointing out that in order to exercise the extent of the free will we have, we need to understand the consequences in a more immediate fashion. And that the market is not equipped to handle this, just as human nature is not. I'm not breaking new ground here, just repeating what has been discovered in behavioral economics over the last 50 years.

 

[eevee-fan]

Really? What pushed solar from $100/w to <$10/w. Sure wasn't the free market.... at least not on its own.

Since we are online, internet is the best example where government intervention made it possible.

 

[Big Dog]

Since we are online, internet is the best example where government intervention made it possible.

Definitely true a DARPA essentially invented the internet. (with apologies to Al Gore). But then the US government got out of the way and eventually it flourished. OTOH, the French govt made a huge investment (and control) in local internet (in the early '80s), and while they initially grew much faster than the US, the US private companies left the French program in the dust.

I believe this supports Ohman's putting a thumb on the scale?

 

[CyberGus]

 

[nwdiver]

Deceptive trade practices and fraud do need to be punished.

So what should the punishment be?

A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation

 

[CyberGus]

As my father would say "everything in moderation, nothing in excess".

Too much of a good thing is wonderful.

 

[FlatSix911]

My book club just reviewed this title... ... everyone on both sides of the discussion would benefit from reading this analysis along with proposed solutions.

False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet: Lomborg, Bjorn: 9781541647466: Amazon.com: Books

"The New York Times-bestselling "skeptical environmentalist" argues that panic over climate change is causing more harm than good

Hurricanes batter our coasts. Wildfires rage across the American West. Glaciers collapse in the Artic. Politicians, activists, and the media espouse a common message: climate change is destroying the planet, and we must take drastic action immediately to stop it. Children panic about their future, and adults wonder if it is even ethical to bring new life into the world.

Enough, argues bestselling author Bjorn Lomborg. Climate change is real, but it's not the apocalyptic threat that we've been told it is. Projections of Earth's imminent demise are based on bad science and even worse economics. In panic, world leaders have committed to wildly expensive but largely ineffective policies that hamper growth and crowd out more pressing investments in human capital, from immunization to education."

 

[CyberGus]

My book club just reviewed this title... ... everyone on both sides of the discussion would benefit from reading this analysis along with proposed solutions.

False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet: Lomborg, Bjorn: 9781541647466: Amazon.com: Books

Top review on Amazon from the United States:
"The current green movement is a deeply anti-humanistic death cult that must be stopped!"

Top review on Amazon from anywhere else:
"An inaccurate and misleading book about climate change
...when you check the papers to which Lomborg refers, you often find that they do not state what he claims. When I contacted some of the researchers about Lomborg's characterisation of their work, they said that their findings had been misrepresented."

 

[JRP3]

Lomborg's work is flawed and has been debunked many times over. He's been spewing the same garbage for years.

 

[CyberGus]

When are the "death cult" meetings? I've submitted my list of names several times, but they're all still alive