COP 17

[biffvernon]

We need another 9/11.

Eh? That killed about as many Americans as get killed in more private murders every month, and gave an, albeit weak, excuse for a couple of wars. I'm not sure that another 9/11 would achieve anything useful.

[biffvernon]

Well, it's tricky isn't it. I see the trajectory civilisation takes as an emergent property, and distinctly not the proactively designed trajectory of our leaders (influenced to a greater or lesser extent by 'the people'). That's what I mean when I say we're not in proactive control, but just strapped into the rollercoaster.

I don't think it follows automatically from that, that one's individual actions have marginal effect, leaving one a nihilist observer.

I guess my main view is that something fairly fundamental changes between the trajectory drivers of individuals/small groups, and the drivers of the Earth system as a whole (including its embedded human civilisation). When I say what will be will be, that absolutely does not mean we should stop campaigning for all we're worth. My "what will be will be" factors in the huge amounts of effort, takes for granted that people, including myself, will be proactive within areas that concern them. What will be will be should not be read a business as usual either.

I believe the die is already cast, we're just not quite clear what numbers came up yet. I expect the historians in 2100, describing the 21st century's trajectories of energy supply, emissions, population, temperature etc. to conclude they were mostly the result of things set in motion long ago, mostly beyond the influence of heads of state at a meeting in South Africa Dec 2011. We can tinker at the edges, but whether the we see 2C, 4C or 6C of warming by 2100, whether the population is 3bn 6bn or 9bn, is influenced more strongly by factors we aren't in control of than those we are. Remember, behaviour change, changing the value system of billions of people is not something we're proactively in control of.

Yes, I agree with all that.

The questions remain, how much effort should one bother putting into campaigning? How many shifty glances should we pass at our friends when they announce they are flying off to the Sun because it's so cheap? How many luxuries should we deny our selves, knowing that they will make only an infinitesimal difference? Should we feel empathy for unknown people? For people not yet born? Should we care how long our species survives? Should we try to set a trajectory that lifts the human race from the Solar System before the Sun goes red giant, knowing that such a trajectory cannot be pro-actively designed?

[biffvernon]

Meanwhile, back at COP17 here's what the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change had to say.

The U.S. is hamstrung. And I wonder how long it’s going to take the U.S. civil society … to realize that climate change is affecting them directly – it’s not just affecting somebody else. I really think the … U.S. population needs to understand that this is not just their historical responsibility, but this is their future that they’re compromising. And when that awareness is raised, then I think the government will make more ambitious decisions. I think there’s no public pressure in the United States to take any more ambitious decision.

That told 'em.

[Ludwig]

I have watched what happens in the world, and seen how those with good intentions ALWAYS get beaten down. The balance of power is overwhelmingly with the bastards and always has been.

Hmmm....if we look back over the last couple of thousand years of history I think there have been one or two shuffles is a good direction. I don't think I would choose to have lived in former times.

Well, the biggest shuffle in a good direction was the Industrial Revolution. All the benefits, both social and moral, of the times we live in can be put down to the wealth provided by cheap energy. Without that, we wouldn't have had the spare resources for education or leisure or for anything other than mere survival. When times are tough, idealism is one of the first things to go.

And look at the fix cheap energy has got us in: we've built an unsustainable civilisation around it, multiplied like there was no tomorrow, and buggered the climate.

What is idealism, anyway? Whenever ideals get realised, there is always a feeling of anticlimax: think about South Africa. We are so obsessed with the idea of progress and improvement, when the only way really of being happy is to live in the present, accept it for what it is, and don't set your sights for the future too high.

And what is morality, too? Obviously it involves caring about something other than oneself, but what if caring about something other than oneself also creates suffering for other things? For example, it's very noble no doubt to help the starving in Africa, and/or to work for a Western standard of living for them; but at the same time you're stoking the fire of unsustainability. What does "saving the world" mean? Saving as much of humanity as possible? Or sacrificing humanity for the sake of the ecosystem at large? All moral actions are relative and ambivalent. Which is why I think all that really matters is the sentiment behind one's actions rather than the actions themselves. One way or another the world will sort itself out, and the only guide to whether you're doing the right thing is whether you really feel in the depth of your heart that you're doing the right thing.

Or something.

[biffvernon]

Well, the biggest shuffle in a good direction was the Industrial Revolution.

That turned out to be more a dance of one step forward, one to the side and two back.

(And the second step back was taken without noticing we were on the edge of the stage with our backs to the audience.)

[frank_begbie]

We need another 9/11.

Eh? That killed about as many Americans as get killed in more private murders every month, and gave an, albeit weak, excuse for a couple of wars. I'm not sure that another 9/11 would achieve anything useful.

I was thinking more in the way of natural disasters.

Such as floods in parts of the world that never had them before, icebergs in the North Sea.

Something to shock the people.

[biffvernon]

Ah. I know the North Sea can make for a chilly swim but icebergs really would be a surprise.

[Ludwig]

Well, the biggest shuffle in a good direction was the Industrial Revolution.

That turned out to be more a dance of one step forward, one to the side and two back.

(And the second step back was taken without noticing we were on the edge of the stage with our backs to the audience.)

Mm yes... But look at it this way. You, or someone close to you, must have been fairly well-off so that you could buy 6 acres of land (I imagine, I have no idea how much land costs I admit!). A sensible enough thing to do. But somewhere down the line it will have been fossil fuels that generated the wealth for you to buy that land. Unless your family is posh, it's extremely unlikely that 100 or 200 years ago you would have been able to lead the pleasant, guilt-free, eco-friendly life you do today.

I have a degree and a job in IT; my ancestors in the 19th Century never went to school and spent their working lives as nail-makers.

Freedom of choice, and disposable income, are very recent things for most families, and we have fossil fuel to thank for them.

[PS_RalphW]

Most of the larger land owners in this country can trace their wealth inheritance back to the slave trade. A few can trace it back to Henry VIII and one or two to William I .

The industrial revolution sprouted too many egalitarian engineers for many to join the landed gentry on any scale. Many of them invested most of their wealth in improving the lot of their workers.

[emordnilap]

Most of the larger land owners in this country can trace their wealth inheritance back to the slave trade.

Biofuels, then?

[biffvernon]

Mm yes... But look at it this way. You, or someone close to you, must have been fairly well-off so that you could buy 6 acres of land (I imagine, I have no idea how much land costs I admit!). A sensible enough thing to do. But somewhere down the line it will have been fossil fuels that generated the wealth for you to buy that land. Unless your family is posh, it's extremely unlikely that 100 or 200 years ago you would have been able to lead the pleasant, guilt-free, eco-friendly life you do today.

I have a degree and a job in IT; my ancestors in the 19th Century never went to school and spent their working lives as nail-makers.

Freedom of choice, and disposable income, are very recent things for most families, and we have fossil fuel to thank for them.

Hmm... not a good characterization of my position I'm afraid. My small holding probably cost less than most houses in Cambridge and was largely paid for out of a teacher's salary with the help of a mortgage. I expect most graduates with jobs in IT in Cambridge earn more than I ever did.

[clv101]

Mm yes... But look at it this way. You, or someone close to you, must have been fairly well-off so that you could buy 6 acres of land (I imagine, I have no idea how much land costs I admit!). A sensible enough thing to do. But somewhere down the line it will have been fossil fuels that generated the wealth for you to buy that land. Unless your family is posh, it's extremely unlikely that 100 or 200 years ago you would have been able to lead the pleasant, guilt-free, eco-friendly life you do today.

I have a degree and a job in IT; my ancestors in the 19th Century never went to school and spent their working lives as nail-makers.

Freedom of choice, and disposable income, are very recent things for most families, and we have fossil fuel to thank for them.

Land doesn't have to be expensive! biffvernon's first smallholding was £15k in 1979, going by the Nationwide data, that was significantly below the average house price of £19800. Just because someone owns land today, does not mean they are (or were once) particularly wealthy in the conventional sense.

[Ludwig]

Land doesn't have to be expensive! biffvernon's first smallholding was £15k in 1979, going by the Nationwide data, that was significantly below the average house price of £19800. Just because someone owns land today, does not mean they are (or were once) particularly wealthy in the conventional sense.

OK, thanks for clarifying. (I did a quick search earlier today and indeed land isn't as expensive as I thought.)

I suspected you and Biff were related, incidentally

[sweat]

Yes, but, there's a link between our education system, biffvernon's teaching job and our wealth explosion due to fossil fuels. I believe there would have have been a lot less teachers around in Britain of old?

[emordnilap]

I believe there would have have been a lot less teachers around in Britain of old?

Don't know about that, but there would definitely have been fewer.