Pages

Friday, May 20, 2011

global warming

What do you think of this argument? It is essentially economic rationalism (and so I mistrust it a lot), but its conclusions are not all totally ridiculous. I cant but help feel theres something shonky about the data: its like a divide and conquer approach by taking localised examples.

http://www.themonthly.com.au/how-tackle-global-warming-smartly-bj-rn-lomborg-3178

7 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was going to post a lengthy response but I guess then I found this and I guess it says it all.

    http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/

    ReplyDelete
  3. This blog is great beside the fight club imagery, nut what do you think of their gloomy outlook? They apply even more rigorous economic rationalization and come up with some very disturbing predictions indeed.
    [http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-past-peak-oil-why-time-now-short?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29]

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't think I can get past the aesthetics of the blog to be honest. (I actually think the fight club stuff shows their hand a lot more than being "mere surface".)

    Anyway, they basically make the peak oil argument that I imagine has been around for ages. Reaching peak oil, while disruptive and requiring great adjustment is hardly the end of the world. It just makes it profitable to use other power sources. That period of adjustment would be costly but in the same way any reallocation of capital is.

    The guy then relies on this guy [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eidQTDjQ5gw ] whos aesthetics I really can't get past!!! These guys seem to basically be neo-malthusian in their approach, and these guys are always predicting the end of the world. They seem to show their true colours in that they equate a period of time lacking in economic prosperity with the end of civilisation as we know it. This should be contrasted with the opinion of lots of theorists who stress how "collapse" and "crisis" is very much internal and prefigured into the system.

    There is a "Real" antagonism in the tension between ecology and economy, however. And, the way capitalism responds to this Real is that it must continue to replicate itself and bring ecological concerns from being external to the system to being internal. Ie. This is what carbon pricing is supposed to be all about. The critique is not just that capital kills ecology etc it is rather that in order to save ecology capital must turn ecology into a form of capital.

    ReplyDelete
  5. and by theorists I mean cultural not economic (perhaps there are economic ones too?)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Re your last two sentences and the topic of the totalizing nature of capital, the critique can be that capital kills ecology AND ecology must be turned into a form of ecology to save it at the same time, the cause is the solution?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The antagonism is the lack of it?

    ReplyDelete