Reminds me of the kea recipe:
Or the spotty recipe: feed spotty to cat, eat cat.
One thing we're losing with urban densification is all those vege gardens. My great-grandparents had a fruit trees on Auckland's North Shore when I was a kid. Which I was not allowed to climb because the trees were old and fragile. These days it's tomatos in pots on the aparatment verandah.
from that (deeply cynical) perspective the only viable solution is a technological solution that sidesteps the need for those in power to behave responsibly.
Fascism! Technomancy, call it what you will, the belief that if we can just get those messy people out of the way the technology will work properly.
The problem with your solution is that there are already a lot of people with the technology to oppose you, and they're doing that as fast as they can. I don't know that they would be so blatant as to set coalfields on fire if you started sucking carbon out of the atmosphere, but I expect that they would come up with a close equivalent.
So a precondition/first step of the technomantic solution is to thoroughly disempower or eliminate the problematic people.
Maybe the bridge is actually a bad idea. But even if it is a bad idea, people should still be allowed their place to work on their bridge idea, free from others trying to stop them doing at least that.
Replace bridge with, say, nuclear weapon and I think your problem becomes much more obvious. "we're right, so it's good when we do things that would be considered awful if other people did them".
That said, I agree with you. There are times to debate, and we've done that. It's time to act, and talk about action.
Do we want to live in a world in which your legal rights are determined by the personal moral scruples of whomsoever happens to be your lawyer at that time?
As you've phrased the question, not so much. Ideally lawyers would decline to represent truly awful clients, yes. But that would require a legal system that is dramatically better at delivering justice than what we have now.
Given the legal system we have, lawyers who will do their utmost to represent their clients regardless of their personal feelings is not just a good idea, it's a requirement for the system to work at all.
For that matter, why should lawyers have a requirement imposed that does not apply to anyone else in the legal system? You don't see the police saying "we don't like you do we're not going to help you"... oh, wait.
Here's an interesting piece from Geoff Gallop about the Labor collapse in WA recently.
the Australian Labor Party is a good case study in this politics of avoidance. Its membership base has all but collapsed, its primary vote is at a historic low and its constitution is corporatist and constraining.
The ALP is, however, still a nationally important organisation with a base in civil society and our political institutions, local, state and federal. This leads many of its leaders and managers – inside and outside parliament – to think that the crisis is part of the normal cycle of politics and good times will return.
As far as NZ goes, I find it quite easy to see The Greens proposal as them just being straightforward and honest and seeing what Labour say. Which seems to me, as a Green supporter, to be quite a natural thing to do. The question is who stood to gain from leaking that proposal, and I can't see the Greens being that party. But maybe this is a double bluff by the greens to cement Labour's reputation as tricky.
Oh, come on. There are about a dozen attacks on Labour in a not-very-long thread, a
In your honour I counted 42 comments, 12 critical of Labour of which I think 7 count as attacks. "Bad mistake on Labour's part", for example, is critical but not an attack, while "they reneged on rod and janette" I'm counting as an attack.
From which I gather you're counting any criticism of Labour as an attack, or you're reading with a bias where attacks shine through in a way that other comments don't.
Link here. Trigger warning for massive fits of pique from Russel’s Facebook followers
Russel, it seems you have picked the worst of the few comments that attack Labour and highlighted it. Which is interesting given your normal position on media angles. Especially since we're talking about Facebook here, where the standard of comment is often dismal.
I thought it was more notable that there was discussion of the importance of strategic voting and acknowledgement that Labour is necessary if The Greens want to be in government.
given the upside simply isn't that large, the natural tendency of cautious social democrats will be to avoid the risk.
Yes, and we've seen a lot of that. It seems to go hand in hand with falling polls. Oddly, rather than saying "polls go up when we announce definite policy, we should do more of that", Labour have responded by becoming even more cautious.
It would be tremendously sad if they ended up like the recent Labor result in WA where those who could be bothered to vote gave a solid kicking to both major parties. Especially since NZ elections allow for the "don't like any of them" option in a way that Australia's compulsory voting officially doesn't. I'd rather not have Winston First collect 5% of the vote just for not being Key or Cunliffe.
But as someone pointed out back then , my suggestions were unacceptable to most because they came from the wrong side of the fence.
But not to everyone. I've worked with The Maruia Society, I've worked with sincere Catholics (I'm a vegetarian and oppose pedophilia), I can work with most people. To a fairly large degree I'll work with anyone who's trying to make things better, even if some of what they do makes things dramatically worse. I look for a net gain, especially when the losses are things that don't affect the gains I care about (yes, even if you drive to the anti-AGW rally). Realistically, the gulf between me and Catholics is larger than most gaps, but that doesn't stop me spending occasional weekends picking plastic waste out of the local river with a bunch of them.
So I'm on the side of listening to people and finding common ground, rather than coming up with ever-more-precise ways to divide people.
It's worth noting that there are way too many people on the net who are just here for the debate. You've previously linked to some from the denier side, but there are examples here of people from the alarmist side doing the same thing.
I can honestly say that I have never encountered a sceptic who explicitly denied that the climate is warming. Where did you personally encounter such a person?
Click the link I posted. There are quotes there from people denying that the climate is changing. Admittedly it's an alarmist site, but the quotes appear genuine and I find it's often easier to get key problematic quotes from people's opponents.
I agree with you about the other problems you pose, I just think they're secondary. They're important more as symptoms of the reason we as a nation/species make really dumb decisions, even though they're actually bad decisions in their own right.
To be clear, I'm not convinced at all that we can wipe out humans, let alone all megafauna/ mammals/ life. What I fear is that AGW will make technological society impossible. I'm not convinced that isolated bands of humans living on manual labour is a desirable future, and I think it's worth spending a huge chunk of our technological resources to avoid it (rather than watching helplessly as we lose those resources).
Would a new word for people who accept climate change but are skeptical that it will be a catastrophe be helpful?
Possibly, although Bart's point about the extremes being loudest militates against it. Personally I find it hard to understand how someone can beleive on the evidence that the climate is changing but it won't be catastrophic. I count them as unreasonably optimistic. Montreal notwithstanding, we have a very poor record as a species at dealing with long, slow catastrophes.
It's also a position full of people who don't want to be labelled extreme, regardless of their beleifs. On the one hand I do like that we have people like that, because they're the reseviour that fills out social change movements once the momentum starts to build. Unfortunately, they'll often move in whatever direction the momentum goes rather than deciding on the evidence, then complain if that turns out to have been the wrong "decision". They'll say "someone should have been more persuasive"... on that basis "someone" should have just made the decision and left them out of it. Say "moo".