Limit to growth

[djolds1]

Green-ism has collapsed in the last three years.

The huge expense of the desired global regulation (and pay offs to the developing world) can no longer be afforded;

Devil-take-the-hindmost mentalities are undermining the EU, refiring nationalism, and consequently undermining the willingness to submit to additional money-demanding transnational authorities; and

It is obvious the Kyoto is on the rocks and there will be no follow-on.

Copenhagen 2009 was bad, Durban 2010 was a joke, and no one even noticed the Bonn 2011 IPCC Conference. And to add insult to injury, the Climategate-1 and -2 datadumps have undermined the Olympian reputations of the pro-CAGW worker bees.

Time for the Reds to find yet another new home.

Wow.

So what is your solution for how we share common resources: atmosphere, seas, etc?

You sound as though what you want is a free-for-all in which there is no agreement between parties and therefore the resources are used non-optimally.

I don't "want" anything - I am analyzing the events of the last several years. The grand program for global climate regulation has collapsed. It was far too large and expansive to begin with. If its backers really want their concerns addressed, they should refocus to smaller and more local initiatives, such as carbon soot cleanup in China.

Suppose Iran (or somewhere else) decides that atmospheric nuclear tests are sensible. Is it greenism to try to stop them? And if not, why are emasures to reduce or stop other undesirable global consequences wrong?

"Nuclear" is a boogeyman, and has been for 50 years. The geopolitical arguments wrt nukes in the hands of rogue regimes outweigh the environmental ones by far. And IIRC, the long-term global effects of atmospheric testing during the early Cold War have been entirely marginal, so your basic assumption is questionable.

[choff]

The prime minister of Canada came back from the Davos conference with his brain sufficiently washed out that he immediately started spouting off about the need for austerity. This in a country the same size and resourse base of China but about fifty times fewer people. He`s also talked about how we have to live with the loss of sovereignty that globalization will bring, how we have to sacrifice to control the fraudulent deficit.
When I look back on all the doomsday scenarios stuffed down peoples throats by politicians and media from kindergarten on all I can say is, `what a crock of $8!+`.

[mvanwink5]

I like how socialists always frame private property into communal property, claiming that spill over means no one owns anything. Then after that leap of logic, the socialists then want their honest politicians, heroic, insightful, all knowing, caring, and compassionate committees, commissars, czars, bureaucrats and lobbying cronies, to step in to sort things out properly. After all, in their imaginary world, there would only be chaos without their perfect oversight.

Those socialist must truly wonder in disbelief how the market ever put a price on shoes, cheese, bread, cars, hair pins, etc, times millions, without the oversight of government hoards? It truly must be baffling. But for sure it must be fixed to be socially just and save the world.

[MSimon]

"What's mine is mine and what is yours is the people's"

We will also be watching to make sure you aren't doing things to drive up insurance rates and other communal costs.

[choff]

Iceland was $100 Billion in the hole until they told the international bankers to stick it, they weren't going to pay their debt to them. Since then, Icelands GDP grew by 4.5% last year, something the international media just don't like to talk about.

[MSimon]

So what is your solution for how we share common resources: atmosphere, seas, etc?

I'm taking your share of the atmosphere and breathing it before you have a chance. As an alternative I'm thinking of setting up a transnational committee to determine your proper share of the resources and see that you get your share. Minus necessary government services. Is today one of your breathing days comrade?

You are assuming these resources are zero sum.

Usually (e.g. fish) they are negative sum.

It shows a certain idelogical inflexibility to imagine there can be no allocation problems requiring supranational agreements to sort out.

When allocation is important ownership seems to work best.

[tomclarke]

I'm taking your share of the atmosphere and breathing it before you have a chance. As an alternative I'm thinking of setting up a transnational committee to determine your proper share of the resources and see that you get your share. Minus necessary government services. Is today one of your breathing days comrade?

You are assuming these resources are zero sum.

Usually (e.g. fish) they are negative sum.

It shows a certain idelogical inflexibility to imagine there can be no allocation problems requiring supranational agreements to sort out.

When allocation is important ownership seems to work best.

Ownership don't work too well on air. Or sea (though that not so bad). Or long rivers.

[MSimon]

Ownership don't work too well on air. Or sea (though that not so bad). Or long rivers.

Rich people can afford to be more ethical.

And speaking of air. How much CO2 should be in it? Lets put it to a vote.

[Jccarlton]

The big problem with the limits model is the people pushing it:
http://neveryetmelted.com/2012/05/31/wh ... nts-to-go/
I am so tired of clueless lefties telling me how much better it would be if we just let them run things. The real world does not run on pixie dust and lefty feelgoodism. Charcoal is not "carbon neutral" and steam locomotives became unviable for very good reasons:
http://www.futureoftech.msnbc.msn.com/t ... ree-793578

Zero growth and this kind of misallocation of economic resources is only going to lead to bad things in the end.

[choff]

You might want to have a look at the cozy relationship between international finance and the greens. They're talking about a new carbon based global currency, that's the real push behind reducing CO2.

http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/climate ... ical-elite

[hanelyp]

I thought the push to reduce CO2 emission was nothing more than a plot to turn most of us into serfs by destroying wealth.

[choff]

I thought the push to reduce CO2 emission was nothing more than a plot to turn most of us into serfs by destroying wealth.

Ultimately they want to reduce the population by 94%, keeping the current top 1%'ers intact plus a residual 5% for serfdom, unless they decide to replace even the naturally bread underlings with clones.

First they say cars are bad, oil is bad, ban them because they hurt the enviroment. Highly educated people consume more than everybody elso, no more universities. Then nuclear and hydro are also bad for nature, so no more electricity. Farming and fishing also hurting Ghia, no more food. Throw in a few financial disasters, plagues, wars, just to help consolidate things, a little mind kontrolle to help people accept the program, etc.