I was under the impression that he had trained himself in economics, not that there’s anything wrong with that. You could go to school for it and still end up an Austrian, or you could not go to school for it and still not end up an Austrian.
I disagree with Mr. Pirate Hunter about many things, but he has a very good point here: the issue is like a court case, and it’s worse than that. The two main parties cannot agree on jurisdiction or rules of evidence, and even if they did, the scientist-judges could still be wrong, like they have been about so many things in the past.
This is my problem: saying it’s a left-right issue feeds the tendency to polarize the policies that relate to it. If being a “climate believer” or “climate skeptic” is a full package, then from where I’m standing both packages are lousy.
One package proposes a major reduction of air pollution, which would seem to benefit everyone* (though it would not affect all economies equally). Yet this package also draws attention away from other issues.
If we blame anthropocentric carbon emisions for everything from the great die-off of ocean life to the sinking of the Maldives to the war in Syria, even if there is a causative relationship (I’m not saying there isn’t), we risk reducing action on other causative factors, such as the political roots of the Syrian mess, unprecedented industrial scale sand dredging, unprecedented water pollution (industrial waste, large plastic items, microbeads, etc.) and so on.
If anthropocentric carbon emissions are reduced to basically zero, but dredging continues, coastlines will still erode. If various political problems persist, so will wars. If products with microbeads etc. are not banned but simply dumped in “emerging markets” (i.e. poorer countries), plastic will continue to accumulate in the food chain, which is a new phenomenon that we don’t even understand yet. And so on.
Unfortunately, the other package seems to propose little more than business as usual, which frankly is crap.
Meanwhile, mob mentality means people who don’t fit neatly into either camp may be afraid to offer their .
This is not a parody. The people responsible for it (you may remember them from The Age of Stupid
) removed it from their website and put up a notice saying they acknowledged it was a tactical mistake, but not actually apologizing or renouncing violence.
*And one more thing: everyone suffers from air pollution, but the rich suffer less. It used to be that the rich would just take more spa vacations far away from industrial centers than the poor could afford. Now with enough money you can enjoy clean air indoors and even outdoors with giant clean air tents, even in the dirtiest cities. It’s kind of like having air conditioned beaches in Dubai, but on another level. (Cue a certain Englishman explaining how the poor actually want to choke to death in the smog… )