Idiot

http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=5936

I agree that there is an ‘economic’ factor, but I think that people will eventually realize there is more to living well than having lots of money. Perhaps the current financial debacle will help move the meter. (I tend to be an optomist…)

With respect to what to do about I think it is important to point out that the science does not really dictate an answer to that question. It can help inform the answer but not dictate. I have encountered people who seem opposed to climate change because they think it suggests that a sacred cow for them, unfettered markets, are endangered by the notion of climate change. In a sense they are right since the fact that markets did not foresee the problem is a huge market failure. On the other hand, it doesn’t mean the solutions can’t involve markets.

My response to these people is to point out that trading carbon permits is very much a market based solution. The problem is that the information people would need to make an economic computation about the carbon effects of the products they buy is not present in any way. A carbon permit market provides that input artificially. I’m not saying that carbon permits are THE WAY ™ to go. I’m just saying that assuaging people’s fear about threats to their sacred cows can be helpful when it comes to climate change.

Another big area of contention is in the area of economics in general. I don’t have a lot of hope in this area. When you have a field with Nobel prizes to Milton Friedman who believed in unfettered perfectly efficient markets, and Joe Stiglitz and Paul Krugman who think there are a lot of times (if not most times) where markets are very efficient at all, it is going to be hard to say anything definitively.

Part of the problem is the place where people can find common ground is already there. The vast majority of people believe what they believe because they think it is what is best for humanity/society. They just have vastly different view on how to get there.

The closest thing to a consensus I have found is that most people think the banksters and their shareholders should “take their medicine” and eat the losses they have incurred. Some believe that there should be additional efforts to help stop the suffering the melt down is causing in the real economy. Others think there is nothing that can be done. Unfortunately there really aren’t any political leaders proposing that route. Not Obama, not McCain and certainly not Bush/Paulson. All of these people are doing/did everything they could think of to make sure the banksters wouldn’t have to take their losses (note: Obama could prove me wrong here as his plans are not announced yet but it doesn’t look promising). There are multiple ways to do it, equity purchases at a fair price (not the inflated price Paulson paid), or orderly bankruptcy (which would require temporary nationalization) for the insolvent banks, etc. But, maybe we can all agree that one way or another the banksters should take their medicine.

Oh yes, and:

^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H

@sonic: sustainability is a huge thing but current economic ideals get in the way. In Australia for example, most people overgraze the land and devastate the usually incredibly thin layer of topsoil. Whenever people tell me that overgrazing is no longer a problem I just laugh in their face because only an idiot can think that the current general practice isn’t severe overgrazing. Intensive agricultural practices also devastate the land; the solution of course is to keep clearing naturally vegetated areas to provide agricultural plots to take the place of the destroyed areas. This is all driven by a simple matter of economics; no one will buy your goods if you use the land in a sustainable manner because you cannot possibly compete with the (oxymoron here) productivity of the competitors. Them: 2 tonnes/hectare – You: 1/2 tonnes/hectare – you’re just not productive. I have been advocating a shrinking population, a reduced economic output, and a move to less intensive/productive agriculture with the aim of a sustainable system. I challenge you to find a single economist on the planet who would think that’s a good idea. Another challenge would be to find a politician who would dare tell people that the economy must shrink and that farming practices must change in such a way that food costs more. I can’t imagine economists changing – after all, they’re the greatest purveyors of the myth that technology will miraculously solve all problems and all with no money invested in research and technological development.

Not that anyone wants to really discuss it, and if they do, they are sure to point out you could fit all of the people in the world inside the Grand Canyon. At that point once can only hope not to be alive when such a time comes to pass.