Site Meter

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

The Tragedy of the Commons - Climate Change

Bj-chip@Frogblog describes how the lack of individual action is resulting in a global crisis, and has suggestions as to how that situation might be resolved. Bj's a very bright man and a thoughtful one at that. Climate change deniers - read him if you dare!

"The problem with “The tragedy of the commons” is that no individual can address it. It takes agreement between enough individuals to force the issue on the rest, and the operative word here is force. The process MUST affect the “rights” of individuals/nations to damage the commons.
It must put a price on the destruction of the commons."

"bjchip
Posted August 29, 2012 at 4:11 PM


If there were an actual PRICE on CO2 emissions we might have a leg to stand on.

As things are, we’re completely gutless. NO credibility internationally and we cannot complain to the Chinese or the Americans about their lack of action OR impose tariffs on their goods for failing to act.

I am taking this point as meaning that our contribution is small, therefore we can/should do nothing at all.

It is a waste of money? No…
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm

There is also increasing awareness now that 3-sigma droughts have hit most of the major grain producers on the planet… at the same time. If we actually HAD a tax, not an eviscerated pretence, we could ask the Chinese to join with us in pressuring the USA. We could ask the Aussies to join us… etc.

It would not take many nations to make the US uncomfortable. Nor would this be related to the UN at all. Regional efforts could likely do the trick.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

The problem with “The tragedy of the commons” is that no individual can address it. It takes agreement between enough individuals to force the issue on the rest, and the operative word here is force. The process MUST affect the “rights” of individuals/nations to damage the commons.

It must put a price on the destruction of the commons.

RWNJ ignoranti have repeatedly blocked efforts to do this through the UN (“it encroaches on our sovereignty”). By doing so they implicitly require each of us to do it for ourselves. This has not ever worked in human history but leaving that point… the same mob of idiotic jerks asserts that since we can’t do it ALL ourselves it shouldn’t be done at all.

Sorry. It isn’t “optional”. We WILL reduce CO2 emissions or Mother Nature will grind our civilization into dust.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dai_et_al_2010.html

I pointed out a decade ago, that drought and flood would hit us first.

As for “what we pay for the ETS” , my previous submission on this topic called the government criminal for arranging public subsidy of the credits that major emitters needed for BAU. That subsidy of big business is the thrice damned “cost” and it is an act of TREASON by this government to keep it in place.

I also predicted that this “cost” would be used as an excuse to try to abandon the entire exercise within 3 to 5 years.

My contempt for this government and for the RWNJ ignoranti who support it is without bounds at this point. TPP, asset sales, support of children “dopey” and on and on and on…

FTWAFS… all of them… with the same fork."

"RWNJ ignoranti" - classic

14 comments:

BS buster said...

deluded ..
a couple of questions for you robert .

has co2 been substantially higher in the past ,
has earths temperature been considerably higher in the past .


if your answer is yes .

next questions,, why is there no record of climate catastrophe

robertguyton said...

Yes, I believe that is the case. These vast stretches of time that these events you allude to occured in, BS, pre-hominid?
Records are difficult to extract from those long-ago times.
You are, it seems to me, diving desperately into minutiae in order to distract yourself from the present situation. I'm not tempted to debate your points with you with any real conviction, rather, I'm tempted to taunt you with trivial word games.
Ps - Are you using the name 'deluded' now as a pseudonym?

BS buster said...

you havent answered my question,,
where is the evidence of past climatic catastrophe which you would expect to be easy to find if your co2 , driven temperature is in fact a correct hypothesis?
it does not appear to be there even when co2 was 7000 pp?[ proxy ice core data]
yes i see you cannot debate the facts robert , infact you are at pains to avoid them

robertguyton said...

oh, that's easy to answer, bs. I don't know. Nor do I care about the details of some ice core data. I keep telling you this but you don't learn.

BS buster said...

unfortunatly,, that is correct ,, you dont care about fact ,
but you do care about passing your opinion off as fact ..
i think thats a pretty good example of what might be termed as popular pseudoscience.
i have no issue with a divergence of opinion.. but i do have an issue with misrepresented fact

BS buster said...

as i read about the attributes of co2, it beneficial effect on plant life , the fact that carbon is a base constituent of everything we consider solid . its photosynthetic contribution , not only to terrestrial plant life but also to marine flora.and therefore fauna we have to consider co2 as a truely "green "element , without which , life on earth would not exist.
co2.. it is not a pollutant . it is an essential life giving gas

robertguyton said...

"unfortunatly,, that is correct ,, you dont care about fact ,"

Oh, I do care about facts, Anonymous, I'm just not very interested in your selective presentation of 'facts' you obsess over. can't be bothered playing your endless game.

"but you do care about passing your opinion off as fact .."

I present my opinion as my opinion - how many times do I need to repeat this to you? Read the header to this blog.

"i think thats a pretty good example of what might be termed as popular pseudoscience.
i have no issue with a divergence of opinion.. but i do have an issue with misrepresented fact"

Your hoping that I'll enter into debate over your 'facts', Anonymous, but I won't. I have read widely, seen your approach demolished by brainy people and don't need to endlessly repeat that process. I have a clear line on the issue, well tested and don't find your talking points worth tackling at all. I'll continue to broadcaste my views, as i believe it's important to bring attention to what is happening. I'm bringing it to the council's attention this coming Wednesday and calling on them/us to declare our position and officially describe what we are doing/going to do about it. You'll get quite twisted up when you read about that in the newspaper :-)

robertguyton said...

"as i read about the attributes of co2, it beneficial effect on plant life , the fact that carbon is a base constituent of everything we consider solid . its photosynthetic contribution , not only to terrestrial plant life but also to marine flora.and therefore fauna we have to consider co2 as a truely "green "element , without which , life on earth would not exist.
co2.. it is not a pollutant . it is an essential life giving gas"

This is a very good example of your selective belief, Anonymous. No one is saying that the facts you have presented here are not true but it's patently obvious that you are leaving out some important aspects. That pretty much describes your position in the debate, in my opinion. For example, you say,of Co2
"it is an essential life giving gas"
but I'm certain you'd change your tune if you were locked in a room that was filled entirely with it.
And that's where your argument collapses. you select, example the above 'puff-piece for Co2' and 'neglect' to mention the other significant details. Blinkers.

BS buster said...

that response would be to bs buster i assume ,
i do not believe you when you say you have read widely on the topic , it is certainly not obvious

robertguyton said...

I care not one whit whether you belive that I'm well read on the topic, bs.
Well discussed too, I am.

BS buster said...

discuss by all means .. hold your opinion strongly as is your right ,,
but when you refer to others as climate" deniers , and goons" and you mean to ridicule and do so to convince others your opinion is the only valid one ,, you have a moral obligation to back it up with fact ,
unlike yourself
i have consistently responded with fact ,, as you challenged others , and given reference to the scientific literature .


robertguyton said...

Ha! I tried to point out that your adopted name was an implied slight on the position held by others, myself included and that it was abit rich for you to be whining about the use of perjorative terms (deniers/goons) but Webmarshall here at ES stopped me from using your pen name. How bad is that?
My point is, you visit here with an insulting name, then grizzle when you get labled.
Lame.

BS buster said...

But i dont talk BS like you do \Robert

BS buster said...

im concerned your ego is so fragile Robert.
Think of bs buster as here to help you understand the facts