4 Comments

1. Graham_Land says:

   Jul 29th, 2010 at 15:16

   You’re welcome, Neil and thanks for your constructive comments.
   /
   As far as the quote, I thought it was OK. My judgement is not perfect, but I do try my best to be responsible. It’s not meant to be a summary of the Guardian piece, but rather to put some different perspectives and links on the issue. I thought that it was clear they were quotes of quotes and I’ll leave it at that.
   /
   What you say about politics being compromise, I fully agree and was thinking about it earlier in regards to this. It is a balance between the ideological and practical, but there are of course different points along that scale and sometimes realpolitik can rationalize anything. As far as the specifics of emissions trading or carbon and fuel taxes (which could be a better solution) both “work” theoretically and both would be experimental in each different milieu they are applied. In any case, the potential faults, big or small, should be brought up. That doesn’t mean I’d like to see a Ralph Nader style sabotage of something that could help just for the sake of idealism rather than what is politically possible, especially in the US.
   /
   Probably the biggest obstacle to the success of emissions trading will be the lack of rule of law, which I believe to be the strongest factor of any political or economic mechanism. Loopholes, corruption, confusion, issues of transparency, and a tendency to follow the letter rather than the spirit of these policies are very worrying things.
   /
   At the same time I kind of think you are arguing against Decodcidio’s hardline position rather than mine. I DO see the points made by Thomas Friedman, et al, but to me they are just as ideological as any leftist/social justice campaigner, though apparently more politically possible, I’ll give you that. However, in the end Naomi Klein and Annie Leonard just make more sense and at least talk about the most vulnerable, who are the ones facing emergencies now and in the coming generation. James Hansen brings up good critiques as well. They should be at the very least heard.
2. Neil says:

   Jul 29th, 2010 at 14:01

   First of all, thanks for the sensible, reasoned response, I have picked up authors for similar issues in the past and get nothing but abuse in return.
   \
   But while your guardian quote does indeed include quotation marks within it, my objection is that the choice of quote does not reflect the actual tone of the article. In fact, all you quoted were quotes of quotes – why not quote the origional website?
   \
   If you wanted to quote the guardian to show the fact that a mainstream media outled had picked it up, showing the seriousness of the story, why not quote the intro or the conclusion? The very next paragraph contains some actual substance that was not on the origional spoof site.
   \
   But by doing it that way, to someone who is reading it in passing, they might attribute the opinions expressed in the spoof site, quoted in the guardian to the guardian. It is out of context.
   \
   \
   On the other issue about being ‘held hostage to…capitalist solutions’. It’s called compromise. Thats how democracy works! Unless you get 100% of people agreeing with a solution, you will always get some people who disagree with the outcome, and they will feel like they are being held hostage. If other solutions were put into force, those who believe in the ETS as a real solution will ask why should they be held hostage to socialist solutions? You are making it a partisan issue by talking in terms of morality rather than practicality.
   \
   The simple fact of the matter is that other methods for reducing CO2 emissions have been pitched and rejected…but emissions trading has found enough support to be enacted in several american states, NZ, and the whole of the EU (+ 3 non-EU states), and is being debated in Japan, S Korea, Australia and many more. and emissions trading can work, if people support it. But the biggest opposition comes from people who have a moral objection, and look for practical problems, while ignoring the practical benefits.
   \
   \
   And with regards to social justice…Chemotherapy is poision – but it is better than the cancer
   \
   If we spend our whole time debating ways to ensure that every one of the 6 billion people on earth get an equal share, and accept equal responsibility…then the sun will go supernova before an agreement is reached! Surely an unfair solution is better than no solution at all. Debate is healthy, but if people insist on shouting about how urgent this problem is, but refuse to compromise on anything the result will be the death of everyone – but at least then we will all be equal.
3. Graham_Land says:

   Jul 29th, 2010 at 11:37

   Neil, I did not mean to intentionally mislead. The quote from the Guardian clearly has its own quotations from the spoof site and is a report on the spoof rather than a debate about emissions trading or the science of climate change. I found out about the hacking from the Guardian article so I felt right quoting it. I didn’t even rail against cap and trade and I think some very clever folks make good arguments both for and against it (Thomas Friedman and Naomi Klein). In fact most articles I linked are PRO emissions trading.
   /
   Anyway, the story has nothing directly to do with the science of global warming and besides, I don’t think the environmental movement should be held hostage to neo-liberal or capitalist solutions or “us and them” partisan politics, especially when some of these ‘solutions’ may very well hurt vulnerable people. Surely, that is what it is all about, right? Not winning an argument against skeptics (thought that is part of the problem, I agree).
   /
   Doesn’t it bother you that the real social justice arguments get largely left behind if everyone concerned simply puts their trust fully in the hands of those already in power? I feel a bit uncomfortable that mainstream environmentalism seems to be beholden to big business in some way (don’t you?) and am glad there are some press and activist groups who aren’t.
4. Neil says:

   Jul 29th, 2010 at 10:14

   Why is it whenever I read a critical view of the concept of cap-and-trade written by environmentalists, they always resort cheap techniques such as the ‘quotes’ from the guardian report?

   The quotes within the quote actually come from the spoof site, but the way you have presented it, it sounds like they have come from the guardian. The article was actually quite fair and balanced. You should have quoted the spoof site with those points of view, but by doing it the way you have, you have intentionally misled the passive reader into giving it more credibility than it deserves.

   There is plenty of science to support global warming, but by using cheap, sensationalist techniques such as that – you damage the credibility of the environmentalist movement, and give ammo to the sceptics…but that is what many want – the longer the debate continues, the more the opportunity to feel self righteous there is!