Max Abrams to Dominic Flandry:
"'Sure, the Empire is sick. But she's ours. She's all we've got.'" (p. 49)
That series of assertions must be questioned. If there is a sickness, then it needs to be addressed, although that is not Abrams' department. It is never true that the society that we inherit is all that we have and therefore must be defended as it is. Other options are to leave it or to change it. Merely defending what we have inherited, however "sick" it might be, leads to rationalizing injustices and to accepting interminable conflict with those who are accepting exactly the same argument on the other side. And there is always an "other side." As soon as one enemy is defeated, another appears.
A civilization that is moving towards collapse needs to change direction. Later, Flandry is advised not by Abrams but by Chunderban Desai. However, by then, the Empire has declined so far that Flandry's only recourse is to help particular planets to survive the Fall.
56 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I have to at least partially disagree, because I think you are missing something that seems obvious to me: the INTERSTELLAR setting in which the Empire existed. The Empire arose centuries before as a reaction to and solution to the chaos of the Time of Troubles. As a means of restoring interstellar order and peace. But, the Troubles had been a horrible shock to Technic civilization because it brought BRUTALLY home to uncounted races, human and non human, how DANGEROUS the universe was. There would be a sense of people feeling surrounded by hostile barbarians and rival powers unfriendly to them (and we know from the stories how true that was!). That in turn would make people even more inclined to cling to the Empire, whatever its faults.
I think it's fair to say you have a wish for there to be a "perfect," ideal society. MY view is that is a very dangerous attitude, because it can make people unwilling to work within the societies they have, to strive to bring about reforms and correction of abuses by means that would not shake and undermine those societies. Because most times such "revolutions" has brought only chaos, anarchy, wars, civil wars, tyranny, etc. So, I have zero patience for people who want to "transform" the US or UK, to name two real world nations.
So, I agree with Commander Abrams and not you.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Perfection? Yes, why not, longer term, with technological advances and corresponding cultural developments?
Shorter term, I think that some fundamental changes have become urgently necessary. Will the society and level of technology that enable us to have this conversation still exist a few decades hence? Not if countries nearer the equator become scorched and uninhabitable, if coast lines are flooded, if world food production is significantly reduced and if species extinctions accelerate.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, perfection is impossible because HUMAN BEINGS are not perfect. That alone inevitably means EVERY socio/political system will have flaws. No matter how advanced our technology might be.
And I am still not convinced of the inevitability of that environmental disaster you expect so soon. And I absolutely oppose "solutions" ending up with an autocratic despotism imposing "solutions" which does not work.
I will continue to advocate for the limited state, free enterprise economics, replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power and a spaced based solar power system, and using iron sulfites for sopping up excess carbon dioxide.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We need, first, to be clear whether there is a crisis and, secondly, to address what should be done about it. I think that disagreeing about the latter can be a way of avoiding considering the former. But, on the second point, reducing carbon emissions would not not succeed in reducing carbon in the atmosphere?
Paul.
BTW, surely environmental destruction is caused by production for profit instead of for human and social need?
Kaor, Paul!
And I should have made clearer that I am skeptical of whether there is or will be an environmental crisis of the extreme kind you believe will happen in the near future (ten years).
At least iron sulfites sopping up carbon dioxide has been SHOWN to work! And countries like the UK and US has already done much about reducing putting more CO2 in the atmosphere. But China and India are far worse offenders. You should go after them!
No, the best way to determine how to satisfy "human and social need" is for people to freely do so by means of free enterprise economics. It is also my belief that if there is a "market" for cleaning up the environment, only a free enterprise system can find the best ways and means of meeting that demand. NOT busy body politicians and bureaucrats!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The UK and the US haven't done it. Investment in fossil fuels is continuing. Trump pulled the US out of an international agreement. I really don't see what good it does to point out who the worst offenders are. So there is a problem. All of us should go after the worst offenders. Free enterprise rules the world already and is not doing the job. Scientists are saying that this crisis is imminent. It is denied by a well-funded fossil fuels lobby.
Paul.
The trouble with aiming for heaven on earth is not only that you never get it... the problem is that you -can- get -hell- on earth, and that’s generally what results.
Because when you try to turn people into angels, you bring out the devil in them.
We don’t understand our selves; we understand the ways we interact with each other even less than that. Trying to engineer either is roughly the same as a blindfolded drunkard trying to improve a watch with a ball-peen hammer.
Far better to, as Lord Salisbury put it, float gently downstream, putting out a pole to fend off from obstacles as they come up.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: and that "international agreement" was a bad one, injurious to the US. Pres. Trump was right to repudiate it. If agreements are to be LASTING, all parties concerned need to feel they have a stake in making them work. That they will get something from them.
And I still have not seen anything REALISTIC from you on what you would replace fossil fuels with. Hundreds of millions of people in N. America and Europe will not tolerate being reduced to poverty and misery, which is what will happen if environmentalists got their way and banned oil, coal, and natural gas--with NOTHING to replace them. Rather than let that happen, the nations and peoples concerned will rise up and destroy the environmentalists.
RIGHT NOW, the only practical alternative to fossil fuels is NUCLEAR energy. You should be advocating for that!
Mr. Stirling: I agree! Anyone who tries to make dreams of Utopian fantasies real is far more likely to make it HELLISH.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But there is still the problem of the scientific predictions of imminent environmental disaster.
Paul.
Sean,
Isn't the first relevant question wheter an environemental disaster is or is not imminent?
If so, the second one is just how severe we should expect it to be.
Only then can we start discussing what action is necessary, and what actions would constitute a cure worse than the disease.
Suppose for the sake of argument that the answers given by science were "Yes, disaster is imminent and the effects would threaten human exctinction!" (I'm not saying that it is so, just suppose it for now)
If after that the only credible option for preventing the calamity was an iron hard global eco dictatorship instituting a regime of poverty and hardship, I'd unhappily support it. While there's life there's hope for a better future. If on the other hand voluntary agreements between countries were deemed to be enough to solve the situation, then of course that's what I would go with.
If on the other hand, the answers were "No, not gonna happen" and "At worst, we get a little more tan and a little shorter winters", then there's no way any drastic measures should be implemented.
The problem right now is that everybody assumes the other side is conspiring to muddle the science to achieve a political agenda.
Climate sceptics assume scientists warning that a crisis is imminent and the consequences severe are involved in some sort of globalist-socialist conspiracy using the climate as an excuse/lever.
And climate activists assume climate sceptics are denying climate change because they too belive the measures needed to prevent it would be ideologically unsavoury to them.
Kaor, Paul and Johan!
Paul: and THAT is what I am most skeptical about! After the Climagegate scandal, when environmentalist "scientists" were caught red handed falsifying the "data" used for backing their extreme claims, I've been skeptical of them. Like the late Jerry Pournelle, who wrote extensively about these matters, I am not convinced we even know for sure what the problem is and I'm flatly opposed to the statist alternatives advocated by so many on the left.
Johan: see above for your first point. And I agree your second point ties in with the first--albeit I'm still skeptical on how extreme those climate changes can be in only ten years.
IF the extreme, worse case scenario is true, then a global dictatorship Of the kind you mentioned would make sense. But the environmentalists won't come out and SAY that--they keep fudging and dodging that obvious point. And no such dictatorship is ever going to come about that quickly and easily!
And I do suspect the agendas of many who are among the loudest advocates of the view we face catastrophe in ten years. So many of them are plainly doing this to push extreme leftist schemes and ideas I've opposed for decades!
As astra! Sean
I far prefer bickering, log rolling, back scratching, horse trading, all the sometimes rather squalid things needed for people to come to agreements that might work!
I think the evidence of warmer winters, fires, floods, extinctions, melting ice caps and scientists' testimonies shows that the catastrophe has begun and is accelerating.
Kaor, Paul!
And my view remains that of Pournelle, we don't KNOW enough to be sure there is a real problem. And we do know that some things like iron sulfites can work, that nuclear energy works. I've seen nothing PRACTICAL from your side of the argument.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We know more now. I am only trying to establish that there is a problem, not, at this stage, what to do about it. Floods, fire and melting ice caps are real problems.
Paul.
On the "What is to be done?" issue, I sense a growing feeling that it is now too late to do very much - except maybe to ameliorate the worst consequences somehow.
It may be too late to avoid a very severe worsening of the planetary climate, although as far as I've understood, the claim is not that it would occur in the next 10 years, but become unavoidable in the next 10 years which should still give us a little time.
But be that as it may, one thing is sure. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. This means that even if it should be proven that is not the primary agent responsible for global warming so far (which I fully believe it is), raising levels of it will EVENTUALLY contribute to warming the planet even further, and further, and further until what we face is not a worsening of the climate but extinction of virtually all life on the planet, rendering it as hot as Venus. Of course, this would require us to keep ignoring the mounting effects in the face of all evidence until we kill the planet. So, no, it's not too late. We still have a very long way to go before we manage to kill our selves off. :)
On the other hand, I'm not sure what the "statist alternatives advocated by so many on the left" are. Is it international agreements to reduce carbon emissions? However we do it, by increasing use of nuclear power (which I completely agree we should) or by making greater use of solar and wind power (which we also should), the end result must be a reduction of carbon emissions, otherwise what have we achieved?
On the other hand, if it's true that Chinese and Indians do not want to do their part, then that is a reason for rational countries to do MORE, not less! We do not live on different planets after all, and they will drag us down with them. But I would complement such unilateral action with heave carbon tariffs to prevent cheap, eco-dirty foreign imports outcompeting clean eco-friendly domestic production. And the revenue from such tariffs should be used to subsidy clean exports to outcompete dirty foreign production. See there a trade war worth fighting!
Johan,
You are right that the claim is that the catastrophe will have become irreversible in about ten years time but all the signs are that not enough is being done and that carbonization of the atmosphere is increasing. I agree that, if 2 countries refuse to change, others should do more, not less.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul and Johan!
I am still not convinced of the inevitability of an ecological catastrophe ten years or more from now. But, put that aside and let's assume the alarmists are right, I still what would they DO? What would they REALISTICALLY replace oil, coal, natural gas with? The longer they keep dodging admitting only nuclear power could replace fossil fuels, I will have steadily less reason to take them seriously.
For the US, UK, or SWEDEN to switch over to nuclear energy would also mean those countries would be doing more to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. BUT, the fanatical and ignorant opposition to nuclear power by too many in these countries makes phasing out fossil fuels LESS likely.
I also discussed, at length on this blog, a real world case of am extremely successful use of iron sulfites (plain old rust!) scattered at certain locations on the sea which massively sopped up CO2. My source being Robert Zubrin's book THE CASE FOR SPACE. THIS HAS BEEN SHOWN TO WORK but too many of the climate alarmists are hostile, dismissing it out of hand as a "technofix."
It's hard to take environmentalists seriously when they oppose realistic alternatives to fossil fuels or answers to the problem of CO2. It makes me inclined to say "To Heck with them all!"
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But you have got to be convinced of the imminence of the catastrophe. The vast majority of scientists say it and the evidence is now right out in the open. It is happening now: consistently warmer temperatures; fires in Australia, North America and even in the Arctic; the sinking of Jakarta; the melting ice caps; species extinctions. This can only be taken very seriously. There is a well-funded lobby of denial, notably by the Koch family. You quote writers who said that we do not know enough but that is out of date. There was some faked evidence? There is more than enough immediate genuine evidence.
As to what it is to be done, yes, your ideas can be tried as well as others but the fact is that nowhere near enough is being done. The opposite is happening. It is far too late to be still doubting and disagreeing about the issue.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And my belief is that the only REALISTIC solutions is to go whole hog for nuclear energy, iron sulfites in the sea, and a space based solar power system. The fact that so many still oppose these solutions is why I can't take those who argue we face catastrophe seriously. You will not get people to agree with you if all you offer is the ruin and poverty to be endured by banning fossil fuels and not replacing them with realistic alternatives.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But the fact that so many still oppose those solutions does not change the fact that we face catastrophe. It is not just that some people argue this. The UN IPCC has consistently said it and the evidence is all around us right now. How many oppose solar energy?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
At least for the sake of argument, I have provisionally accepted that point! I'm trying to move on from that and ask what the climate alarmists would DO? What are their SOLUTIONS? I, at least, have offered three basic solutions over and over and gotten little response. It makes me think the OTHER side has no ideas, no realistic solutions.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Most basically, all governments and all big corporations need to take urgent advice from top environmental scientists about immediate measures. I can hardly anticipate what the scientists would say. But I would prefer poverty for an emergency period to starvation.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm sorry, but this is frustrating and unsatisfactory. What ARE those "immediate measures" some, not all, scientists might recommend? We don't need to wait to at least start building new nuclear power plants and scattering iron sulfites at sea. A space based solar power system would be longer term, but much could STILL be at least stared relatively soon.
I'm sorry, but I remain unimpressed by the other side. I am offering concrete proposals and seeing nothing from the other side.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But we are at complete cross-purposes about whether there is in fact an imminent catastrophe. I do not know what scientists would recommend. They might well recommend all the things that you suggest but governments and corporations are not implementing them. We should not be on two "sides" about this. The other "side," as you call it, does recommend solar energy. Nuclear power is inherently unstable and dangerous but might, for all I know, be a lesser evil.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm sorry,but the mere fact DISAGREEMENT exists means there will be "sides."
And I flatly disagree with this partial dismissal of nuclear power. Up to date nuclear power plants are NOTHING like the already obsolete design used by the blundering Soviets at Chernobyl.
And the current means used for solar energy are hopelessly inadequate for gaining the energy a high tech society needs.
Again, I am unimpressed.
Ae astra! Sean
Sean,
Disagreement as to whether there is an imminent catastrophe? That should not still exist but there is a powerful po-status-quo lobby that funds expressions of doubt.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I thought I was plain. I was talking about, in this case, disagreement about means and solutions. I don't need to list again what I advocate, I hope!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Disagreement about means and solutions? OK. But governments urgently need to discuss this issue and take action.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
There has already been MUCH discussion of such issues, in magazines like NATIONAL REVIEW or books like Robert Zubrin's THE CASE FOR SPACE. But proposals for using things like nuclear power and iron sulfites KEEPS GETTING SHOUTED DOWN, ignored, or maligned. As I have personally SEEN.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Governments need to urgently discuss these issues and take action. Technofixes can have unforeseen environmental consequences but might be needed as emergency measures at least in the short term. I am not ruling out any measures but am arguing that governments need to implement some agreed measures without delay.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still feel frustrated. You want gov'ts to discuss these issues and take action. Very well, WHAT actions? WHAT solutions? I see no ideas, nothing concrete being offered. To say nothing of how skeptical I am of these diplomatic efforts, if only because of how LONG they can drag on, esp. if any country (such as India or China) does not want to cooperate. I do not expect any such conferences to soon happen or come to any WORKABLE and practical agreement.
The UK, the US, or SWEDEN needs no one's permission to take action on their own. They can end the foolish choking and strangling of the nuclear power industry and make it much easier and quicker to build new, modernized plants. And they need no one's permission to scatter iron sulfites at sea.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I know that urgent action is necessary and it is for scientists to say what that action should be.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But if you want to phase out fossil fuels, ONLY nuclear power will work. And that has already been scientifically shown DECADES ago. No need for endless, long drawn out conferences leading nowhere for nations like ours to start building more nuclear power plants. And so on for the other solutions I advocate.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
What is needed is not long drawn out conferences but urgent action. If it can be agreed that a combination of solar energy, other renewables and nuclear energy is the answer, then that should be done.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And a quick decisive conference is not going to happen. And the solar energy technology we have is hopelessly inadequate (just try powering London and NYC with only rooftop panels!). Only nuclear energy and a space based solar energy system will work. The first can be done now, the second could be started on relatively soon, given the WILL.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Perhaps the basic problem in our communication is this. I don't see it as important that you and I agree on precisely what needs to be done. I do see it as important that governments act on sound advice. Because they are doing little or nothing, a campaign of persuasion is necessary. After some climate protestors had disrupted London for a few days, the Mayor said, "Now can we return to business as usual?" A man in his position still had not got the message that business as usual is no longer an option. So more persuasion is needed.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I am sorry, but I still disagree. Because nations are different form eachh other, and will come to their own conclusions about possible problems or crises. Which is why I'm skeptical of the value you place on international conferences.
And despotisms like the regime in Peking won't give much of a darn about marches and demonstrations! Unless such a regime is visibly approaching collapse. Which I don't believe is YET the case in mainland China. Also, the Maoists have a grim history of using the most brutal means for crushing dissent (as the Uighurs in Sinkiang are finding out!).
Secondly, my belief remains that we KNOW what is the ONLY practical near to fairly long term alternative to fossil fuels: nuclear energy. If you are going to have marches and demonstrations, agitate for that! Otherwise, to HECK with them.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Remember: don't apologize for disagreeing. If and when governments heed the campaigns, then they will take necessary action and, if your argument is correct, then that will be nuclear energy! But the present problem is that they are doing nothing and need to be prodded. And this is an urgent issue.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
You are a true gentleman, to be so patient with an argumentative pessimist and conservative curmudgeon like me!
The problem is, I simply can't take marches and demonstrations that seriously. At most, they are blunt instruments, unlikely to encourage the kind of concentrated, detailed thinking need for trying to solve serious problems. They are more likely to get politicians and bureaucrats thinking like this: "What's the fastest and easiest way to get these bloody nuisances off our backs?"
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
That is very true and therein lies a major problem: How CAN we get necessary change? But some past struggles have had effects.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And many of those past struggles had bad consequences. So, I'm not particularly optimistic.
Ad astra! Sean
Hi Paul and Sean, re-entering the fray because Sweden was mentioned repeatedly :)!
First of all, I cannot doubt that we're facing a climate crisis. And while I do not doubt it's is primarily man-made, that is not necesarily terribly important to decide what needs to be done. We know that rising temperatures, whatever the reason, are on the treshold of unleashing self-strengthening effects such as thawing the permafrost and releasing methane gases, desertification which will reduce the carbon capturing plant life, reduction of polar caps (mainly the northern one so far) that will reduce reflection, and so on. And we know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. In this situation, reducing as much as possible any emissions of greenhouse gasses is the only sane way forward. Even if the warming so far should be entirely natural, we know that we will eventually cause further warming by emitting greenhouse gases. Given the dire consequences predicted, we should do everything in our power not to advance warming any further.
I fully agree with Sean that nuclear power will necessarily have to be an important part of any solution. Of Swedish power production, today around 80% (40% each) comes from nuclear and hydroelectric power, around 10% from wind, sun and other renewables and only a very small part from fossil fuels. This is discounting vehicle power, of course.
Unfortunately, the green/left parties have carried on a vendetta against nuclear power since the 70s, so an ageing reactor is currently being shut down and will not be replaced. This is not sane, because while we have little fossil power production to replace, the vehicle fleet is mainly fossil and will have to be powered as we convert to electric drive in the coming decades. Thus power production needs to be increased substantially, not reduced. We should absolutely invest in wind power, and even in Sweden some solar power can be exploited - but realistically, the only way to effect a major increase in power production is nuclear power. Hydroelectric power is all but fully exploited already. But the right-wing opposition is reacting rather vigorously, and given how opinion is trending, I have no doubt reason will triumph in the end, although valuable time will be lost.
Still, Sweden is only a small country with a minute climate impact already. Far more serious is that Germany is shutting down their nuclear power, against all reason. This while still buring coal and russian gas. This is, quite simply, nuts. I'm afraid that in Germany, green activism has been even more powerful than in Sweden, and althoug they now realize the urgency of the climate situation, they are just not able to let go of their old irrational hatreds. But this only makes it doubly important for other countries like Sweden to build more nuclear power and export the surplus to Germany, as an alternative to coal and Russian gas.
In general, I'd say green activist dislike of "techy" solutions in general and nuclear power in particular is one of the great impediments to preventing a climate disaster. The refusal to accept a disaster is threatening is another. The reliance on interantional agreements is a third. This is not an issue that we can chose to fix only in agreement, failure is not an option. Regardless of agreements, all countries that believe a disaster is coming should go all in, and compensate our economies against freerider competition with tariffs.
As for what needs to be done, that should be self-evident. Greenhouse gas emitting technologies need to be replaced with non-emitting alternatives, beginning with the greatest sources. Coal and gas needs to be replaced with nuclear-, wind- and sun power.
long post, continued here:
Vehicles need to be electrified, and cars might not be the primary focus. As far as I understand, oil-powered commercial shipping accounts for around 70% of emissions from the transport sector, while flight, cars and trucks account for the remaining 30%. Cargo ships could conceivably be converted to use primarily sun and wind power.
And of course, all working methods of carbon capture needs to be exploited to the fullest. What you have to write about iron sulfites sounds very promising!
All this is perfectly doable, the "only" question is the cost. But given the stakes, we should approach this with a kind of WW2 national mobilisation mindset. Given that this time the cost will be only in cash, not blood, it will not be to steep to pay.
Johan,
Thank you for very well-informed remarks. I agree that taboos have to be questioned and that every option has to be considered.
Paul.
Kaor, Johan and Paul!
Johan: Thanks for your well thought out comments. Remarks I mostly agree with. Yes, the only really practical alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear energy. And it's fanatical opposition from the greens/left which has been crippling the serious use of nuclear power for nearly half a century. And this opposition to nuclear power has to be rejected.
I'm still extremely skeptical of the value of wind/solar power in anything more than than minor niche use. UNLESS we finally get serious about getting off this rock to build the kind of space based solar power system that would really WORK. And I'm glad you are favorable to using iron sulfites as a means of sopping up carbon dioxide. It would also help rebuild fishing stocks, btw.
We agree, it seems, on the futility of trying to resolve these problems via international agreements. Nations like the UK, US, Sweden, etc., should simply go ahead and DO what needs to be done: building up to date nuclear power plants, use of iron sulfites, and (longer term) a space based solar energy system.
Paul: and the taboos against using nuclear power and using iron sulfites should not only be questioned but rejected.
Ad astra! Sean
Both,
The British left opposed the closure of coal mines in the 1980s but wants fossil fuels stopped now so views can change. I agree that SOME governments should give a lead and take appropriate action. I am not an expert on which actions are most appropriate but scientifically advised governments should be able to decide on effective action.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But are British leftists willing to replace fossil fuels with PRACTICAL alternatives like nuclear energy? I very strongly suspect many are not!
It seems to be mostly conservatives and libertarians who are sympathetic to nuclear energy.
And we don't need endless shillyshallying with studies, commissions, conferences, to START doing what we already know works: nuclear energy and using iron sulfites.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The prevailing view remains anti-nuclear but my point was that this can change and should if necessary - but our views are not dominant at present, in any case! Bojo has a big Commons majority.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I frankly hope the Conservative gov't, after evicting the EU from the UK, will turn to advocating nuclear energy. Conservatives could argue, among other things, that nuclear, long term, would save money--which could be used for other things. That might win over some to supporting nuclear power. And many other arguments could be made as well for favoring nuclear.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean, Paul,
It is unfortunate, to my mind, that the reality of impending climate disaster took hold first in the left, and the activist left at that. Because of that, their proposals to solve the situation will, obviously, carry a leftish slant. For us with a more conservative outlook, it is thus easily assumed that the climate crisis is an excuse for introducing left-wing policies. But I think it is very useful to remember that in any political group, you cannot get away with proposals that go completely against the grain of existing policies.
So of course, left wing climate proposals will also have the incidental "boon" of fighting capitalism, increasing social justice etc. But that is not because that is the only way climate change can be fought. It's because the proposals were made in a left-wing social environment!
Imagine for a second that you're attending the Republican National Convention or something similar, before climate change became a left/right thing. Suppose that you went up to the speakers podium and explained that you wanted to propose some policies to reduce carbon emissions, and this would entail massivly raising taxes, reduce freedom of speech, taking government control of lots of private enterprise and so on. You would be booed of stage long before completing your adress. Or perhaps greeted only by stunned silence, followed by nervous grins and shaking heads.
Well, something similar would have happened to any enviromnental activist claming among his peers that "guys, this climate thing is a VERY BAD THING, we need to rethink this anti-nuclear thing we have going on." Shit, the Green Movement was FOUNDED around anti-nuclear activism! Same goes for upholding capitalism, free trade and so on.
Their proposals look that way because they were made by left wing people, not because they're part of a conspiracy to introduce world socialism with climate change as an convenient excuse. We would do well to remember that!
We will never reach consensus about what measures are best. But the important thing here is that we CAN agree that climate change is a serious threat, and that left or right, we need to do something to combat it. Let the voters decide what!
Johan,
I agree with most of that. Certainly all the scientists reporting melting ice caps etc are not part of any conspiracy. The present economic powers-that-be are big corporations that buy political influence so (i) those corporations address the problem or (ii) they are effectively pressurized to do so or (iii) questions are asked about the legitimacy of their power and influence. These issues, economic/political interactions etc, have been discussed for over a century and it is way too late to start discussing them as if from the beginning. If the present economic-political apparatus can pull us out of the mess that it is creating, then good. If not, then we may well be screwed on this time scale. Is reducing freedom of speech proposed as part of the solution? Governments need to take measures to replace petrol-using private cars with electrically powered public transport and to do this with the urgency of waging a major war. Will they try to do it and will there be powerful resistance to it?
Paul.
Paul,
I think you misunderstood me somewhat, the freedom of speech thing was me trying to imagine a proposal as incensing to a conservative American crowd as proposing nuclear power as a solution to climate change in a environmental activist crowd - pure, unforgivable heresy. :) All in order to explain the slant in some other way than a conspiracy.
My point here is that conservatives need to stop assuming climate change is a fraud because they perceive all proposed solutions as left-wing and start making proposals of their own. I have so far only heard Swedish conservatives advocating phasing out fossil fuels and replace them with, mainly, nuclear power and actually put forward policies to achieve that. American conservatives seem to be mainly about denying there is a problem and re-opening coal mines - sorry Sean, if that seems unfair to you. I agree that this problem should be treated with the urgency of a existential threat war, and in times of war, even conservatives would have to agree government has to step up and take charge of the direction of the war and the harnessing of the country's economic power for the war effort. This doesn't mean communism, American was as capitalist during and after WW2 as before, possibly even more. No one of sane mind can expect business as usual to save us. And as for promising new technologies, like space-based solar power, I have no doubt one day it will provide most of our power, but it will NEVER be in time to save us. We'll have to solve this using mostly current technology, or at least lay our plans assuming that is what we have to work with. That's not left or right, but common sense.
But left or right, we need policies the end result of which are dismantled carbon-emission producing machinery. Ideally, to be replaced by clean ones - but if they are no replaced, life still goes on. If they are not dismantled, eventually, it doesn't.
Johan,
Thank you for explaining. Got it now. I like what I hear about Sweden.
Paul.
Kaor, Johan!
Many thanks for your comment, even if I think they need some revising. For example, I don't believe in silly conspiracy theories. What I do believe in are large numbers of people agreeing on ideas, bad or good, and trying to implement them. I.e., POLITICAL PARTIES or fairly broad ideological movements. I don't need to believe in silly plots to think leftist ideas are mostly bad.
But, the fact is, opposition to nuclear energy comes mostly from the left. If some American conservatives seem fixated on defending coal mines, I would put that down to "What other alternatives do we have, except fossil fuels, if our opponents will not agree to nuclear energy?" Another reason would be irritation at the left being so eager to use state coercion to arbitrarily shut down coal mines. Because that would mean immediately throwing many thousands of people out of work. A phasing in of nuclear energy would give some time for such changes in how labor is used to be spread out, limiting the pain and dislocation.
I'm highly unlikely to make the kind of speech you hypothetically suggest I could make to the Republican National Convention! (Smiles) Not only because the kind of autocratic centralizing of yet more power in the state I might advocate is repulsive to me, but also because it is not necessary. You don't need to be a socialist to advocate nuclear energy, the use of iron sulfites at sea, or a REAL space program.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment