If you can’t break it, it isn’t fixed.
John Lanchester wrote an essay which is to appear in the London Review of Books.
Anyone wishing to help in the synthesis of the 300 has a duty to read it in its entirety.
It is strange and striking that climate change activists have not committed any acts of terrorism. After all, terrorism is for the individual by far the modern world’s most effective form of political action, and climate change is an issue about which people feel just as strongly as about, say, animal rights. This is especially noticeable when you bear in mind the ease of things like blowing up petrol stations, or vandalising SUVs. In cities, SUVs are loathed by everyone except the people who drive them; and in a city the size of London, a few dozen people could in a short space of time make the ownership of these cars effectively impossible, just by running keys down the side of them, at a cost to the owner of several thousand pounds a time. Say fifty people vandalising four cars each every night for a month: six thousand trashed SUVs in a month and the Chelsea tractors would soon be disappearing from our streets. So why don’t these things happen? Is it because the people who feel strongly about climate change are simply too nice, too educated, to do anything of the sort? (But terrorists are often highly educated.) Or is it that even the people who feel most strongly about climate change on some level can’t quite bring themselves to believe in it?
...[W]e are entering a period of climatic change outside the experience of recorded human history, without a confident sense of what those changes will entail. If the events listed above are the whole of the story it doesn’t seem too bad: hotter days and nights, storms and droughts, sound like things we should be able to endure. The trouble is that the global climate is a system of such complexity that we can’t model in sufficient detail what the effects are. The last time CO2 levels were as high as they are today, in the last interglacial 125,000 years ago, sea levels were between four and six metres higher than they are today – a figure which we can take as a proxy for changes which in most respects are beyond imagining. What would happen if the harvest failed all across Europe or the US or Africa? What would happen if it failed again the next year, and the year after that? What would happen if the rain-and-meltwater pattern in the Yangtze valley, the core of Chinese agriculture, changed? What would happen if the glacial run-off from the Himalayas, which supplies most of India with its water, were to change? What would happen if the behaviour of El Niño were to become so unpredictable that agriculture in the Southern Hemisphere became unsustainable at current population levels? What would happen if those glaciers were to melt away? What would happen if the Gulf Stream (the Atlantic’s ‘meridional overturning circulation’, as it is scientifically known) were to shut down suddenly – the Day after Tomorrow disaster scenario? The prediction is that Western Europe would become 8ºC cooler, about the temperature of Canada. But Canada produces enough food to feed 30 million people and enough grain to feed 60 million. Western Europe has a population of about 450 million. So what would they eat?[†] Hurricane Katrina gave us a glimpse of how quickly a meteorological event can destroy a city in the richest country in the world. We may be moving towards a future in which events like that come to seem commonplace. Anything in the paper today, darling? Not much – oh, all the Dutch drowned.
The trackback URL for this entry is: Trackbacks are disabled for this entry
Trackbacks:
Comments:
Page 1 of 1 pages
This gets back to what I think I’m going to start referring to as Actuarial Genetic Interests (which is a more general term than what I previously discussed as actuarial EGI).
The debate over global warming has many of the same attributes as the debate over ethnic genetic interests. There are claims on both sides of benefits vs costs. Vectorists claim that heterosity produces all manner of wonders through (fill in the latest sophistry). Racialists/separatists/true conservatives/etc. claim that our natural heritage of nations and cultures is at unnecessary risk in a relatively meaningless experiment in technologically amplified panmixia. Global warming Cassandras are much like us—they are claiming that our natural heritage is at unnecessary risk in a relatively meaningless experiment in technologically amplified CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) generation.
If there were rational reinsurance networks operating with respect to global application of technologically amplified panmixia and greenhouse gas generation, premium would they charge those who put the rest of us at risk via these practices? How would they go about calculating it? In what “currency” would it be reasonable to “pay the premiums” and “pay out the indemnifications”?
I believe the Actuarial Genetic Interests approach can unify a great many facets of our human dilemma under a single scientific, business, economic model of rational values and retrieve from the leftist loons the moral high ground.
Soren, why aren’t chloroplasts, shellfish, and the oceans buffering increases in atmospheric CO2? Do you support laws mandating reductions in CO2 emissions from human activity?
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Friday, March 16, 2007 at 08:56 PM | #
There have been attack on SUV dealerships, in which numerous vehicles have been damaged/burnt:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95447,00.html
I’m not very fond of SUVs/light trucks myself--they represent a willful misallocation of funds, at the minimum.
Posted by onetwothree on Friday, March 16, 2007 at 09:54 PM | #
Page 1 of 1 pages
Next entry: Happy Jethro Tull Day!
Previous entry: Why "The Political Compass" Is Inherently Vectorist and How to Correct It
Posted by James Bowery on Friday, March 16, 2007 at 06:22 PM | #