Concerning the environment and economics, as per last week's discussion:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090216/pollin?rel=hp_picks
Friday, January 30, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
quick thoughts (really)
Thread running through all pieces: We Are All Connected. Hence interdependent. This is evident in thinking about Climate Change, of course. Rivers, air, make for a dynamical system continually flowing.
Poor people matter to us - even far off as with the Bottom Billion. Besides speaking to who we are as a people, since we're connected, their problems do become our problems. We can't build large enough walls to keep the world out.
In all these cases economics and ecology intertwine, have to keep our eye on both to forge ahead.
Distinction between we/they - othering of people, leads to violence, lack of care - ultimately, seeing we're all connected, there is no division, only we - is key to all of our survival.....
Poor people matter to us - even far off as with the Bottom Billion. Besides speaking to who we are as a people, since we're connected, their problems do become our problems. We can't build large enough walls to keep the world out.
In all these cases economics and ecology intertwine, have to keep our eye on both to forge ahead.
Distinction between we/they - othering of people, leads to violence, lack of care - ultimately, seeing we're all connected, there is no division, only we - is key to all of our survival.....
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
All readings for 012809 – Short form
Discussion Setup for Stern Review: “climate change presents very serious global risks and demands an urgent global response”
From the outset, I’m thinking of the mantra of the environmental movement “Think Globally, Act Locally.” I connect this to the “butterfly effect” in dynamical systems – small actions can have big impacts over time. By acting today, even in small ways, we can influence tomorrow in not so small ways.
The heart of the Stern Review is in the convergence of economics and ecology (as is reiterated by Sachs in his lecture). Note that both stem from the same Greek root “oikos” = house. Nomos = managing, hence economy is “household management.” Logia = “study of”, thus it’s the “study of the house” – or interrelationship of organisms and their environment. One more, ecosystem (house-system) – consists of everything living in the house and the house itself – all interdependent on one another. Seeing the interconnectedness of our planet is essential – we’re all linked by dynamical systems of water and air like arteries in our bodies. Climate change can’t be localized. Thus, in order to care about either economics or ecology, we need to be concerned with both. By mitigating (taking strong action to reduce emissions) now, Stern says, we can prevent huge future costs – economically and ecologically. Again – think local/global/butterflies and consider treating a cut as a small cost that prevents infection (threat to the entire system) and expensive treatment (or perhaps no possible treatment) down the line. Echoing the Native American philosophy of the 7th generation, Stern writes, “Such a modeling framework has to take into account ethical judgments on the distribution of income and on how to treat future generations.” Turn then to social costs, the real cost of things: what is the real cost of a Styrofoam cup if we think about the resources it takes and the landfill space to get rid of it? If we start paying the real cost of what we use – perspectives shift and habits change. Such collective conceptual shifts are necessary, but drastic measures are called for, as Stern argues, “A shared global perspective on the urgency of the problem and on the long-term goals for climate change policy, and an international approach based on multilateral frameworks and coordinated action, are essential to respond to the scale of the challenge.” Perhaps then the mantra shifts to become “Think Globally, Act Globally.” And act now.
A quick look at the critics reveals: conservatives bash Stern for playing chicken little, while environmentalists say he hasn’t gone far enough. Overall the work seems balanced to me, and lays out the enormity of issues in a way that speaks to people’s hearts and their bottom line at the same time, for in his words, “Delay would be costly and dangerous.” Furthermore, as he puts it, even if the specifics are wrong, the risks are so great that, “Uncertainty is an argument for a more, not less, demanding goal, because of the size of the adverse climate-change impacts in the worst-case scenario.” One more thing, in a recent interview, James Lovelock – originator of the Gaia theory of the earth as organism – suggests we may already be too late to avoid catastrophe. That said, he seems unconcerned, as from the view of the earth as organism, less people isn’t a bad thing. Read it here if you’re interested: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html
A question: The U.S. has been acting globally in terms of fighting communism, spreading democracy, nation building, health issues, policing, and more over the years. Perhaps if we’re concerned about our health, our security, our economy, and our future, the most important thing we can do – and do now – is take action and be leaders on reducing emissions and addressing ecological concerns around the world. In the process, as Stern says, we work with others and as I started with – perhaps these little steps lead to other things…. What should this country’s role be? How much do we pressure our leaders to make these sorts of changes? (And acting locally) what can we do within our own lives?
The Bottom Billion
All of these essays point to how we’re all connected – in this essay a key thought is: the growing disparity of wealth between bottom and top 5 billion is not just their problem “it matters to us.” We’re all connected. Thus, it requires complex, multilevel solutions.
Author identifies the problem as one of traps: 1) the conflict trap 2) the natural resources trap 3) the trap of being landlocked with bad neighbors 4) the trap of bad governance in a small country.
This Bottom billion have been declining in growth since 1970s - >>It’s a picture of divergence – not development.
Arguments that we’ve beaten bigger things – like communism, fascism, and disease, and Cuba is a failure seem pretty weak and unsupported. However, identifies factors of lack of growth well. The wage gap cycle and so on.
Talking about loss of “best and brightest” from nations, loss of critical mass of educated people. This I see as true as coming from Detroit – those who can leave – do.
These Traps are difficult to escape – presents blueprint. Closes with: “we cannot rescue them” “only can be rescued from within.” Seems true. We can offer aid, ideas, but ultimately a people have to arrive at a place together to make it work – nation building from above never seems to yield much…
Jeffrey Sachs lecture on sustainable development:
As with Stern review, connects economics and ecology and “rarely do the two meet.” His talk combines the two, and advises to keep both in sight when working on problems – we can fight poverty and save the planet at the same time.
Interesting to think of Asia’s economic growth today, as truly only reflecting its historically large population – that only in relatively recent times was “behind” in development.
>>Brief talk about ecosystem stresses. (functioning of oceans, rivers, atmospheres.) Invasive species wreaking havoc in new environments – have seen this since ships could carry rats and disease…
Asks: “Can world get together” referencing Nicholas Stern Report.
**** The most important aspect is “empathy.” Need to learn to care, to see through others eyes, stand in their shoes, see another perspective. Helps break down us versus them. The threats we face are common to us all.
Solving these problems will take management and leadership skills – cooperation and coordination are vital….
Fear of Small Numbers – the geography of Anger
Where does culturally motivated violence come from in liberal-democratic societies?
The idea of the nation-state, and thus the “national ethos” is dangerous. A singular view of a nation’s people even when embracing the idea of togetherness – creates majority and minority. Arendt and others: the idea of a national people-hood is the Achilles’ heel of modern liberal society. Suggests direct path from national genius to a totalized cosmology of sacred nation eventually to ethnic purity than cleansing….
“Social uncertainty in social life” can lead to ethnic cleansing. Separating “We” from “they.” One kind of uncertainty – how many “theys” are there? How do we define they? Is some appear to be a we but is really a they? These uncertainties can lead to violence – to ensure certainty. Globalization exacerbates uncertainties. “Anxiety of incompleteness” – trouble with majority and minority… not a complete majority with those “Small numbers” as they remind majorities of small gap between an unsullied national whole, pure national ethos. “Narcissism of minor differences” dangerous than before as how easy it is to become other – creates more fear of loss of identity, power of majority….
Globalization exacerbates conditions of large scale violence because it produces a potential collision course between logics of uncertainty and incompleteness….
>>Curiously contrary to Maxine Greene’s ideas of uncertainty and incompleteness. Where she embraces them, societies sees them as a lack.
Powerful quote: Philip Gourevitch re: Rwanda: “Genocide, after all, is an exercise in community-building.”
Vertebrate vs. Cellular systems.
Vertebrate – nation-state, central order, set of norms, flags, stamps, airlines
Cellular – connected yet not vertically managed, coordinated yet remarkably independent, capable of replication without central messaging structures, hazy in central organizational features yet crystal clear in their cellular strategies and effects – aided by Internet, very much like capitalist world and corporations moving from multi-national to transnational to global.
Terror>>Epistemological assault on us all – destabilizes idea that peace is natural state of order and nation-state is guarantor of such order.
Need to look at minorities in nation-state and marginalization of nation-state by globalization….
>>Minorities are a recent social and demographic category and today they activate new worries about rights, citizenship, belonging, entitlement, etc. Become scapegoats, an in globalization era: “Minorities are the major site for displacing anxieties of many states about their own minority or marginality (real or imagined) … Minorities are metaphors, reminders of betrayal of classical national project – nation-states failure to preserve its promise – needs scapegoats – need to eliminate minorities….
Paradox: violence, especially at the national level, requires minorities… So: why kill the weak? An argument of we/they. Fear they’ll be turned into minority unless existing minority disappears first. (Anxiety of incompleteness.) Nazis and Jews – used political propaganda to incite this fear. Could then extend it to other minorities. To construct a German identity had to eliminate otherness – Jews…. Arendt: “banality of evil.” Reduce minorities to “others” – make it easier to hate…
“One” is the smallest important number for liberalism – one nation, undivided… Minorities break up this “oneness…” We allow for procedural dissent (temporary), but substantive dissent – permanent
>>The point here is that small numbers can unsettle big issues, especially in countries like India, where the rights of minorities are directly connected to larger arguments about the role of the state, etc.
>>“As abstractions produced by census techniques and liberal proceduralism, majorities can always be mobilized to think that they are in danger of becoming minor (culturally or numerically) and to fear that minorities, conversely, can easily become major (through brute accelerated reproduction or subtler legal or political means).”
From the outset, I’m thinking of the mantra of the environmental movement “Think Globally, Act Locally.” I connect this to the “butterfly effect” in dynamical systems – small actions can have big impacts over time. By acting today, even in small ways, we can influence tomorrow in not so small ways.
The heart of the Stern Review is in the convergence of economics and ecology (as is reiterated by Sachs in his lecture). Note that both stem from the same Greek root “oikos” = house. Nomos = managing, hence economy is “household management.” Logia = “study of”, thus it’s the “study of the house” – or interrelationship of organisms and their environment. One more, ecosystem (house-system) – consists of everything living in the house and the house itself – all interdependent on one another. Seeing the interconnectedness of our planet is essential – we’re all linked by dynamical systems of water and air like arteries in our bodies. Climate change can’t be localized. Thus, in order to care about either economics or ecology, we need to be concerned with both. By mitigating (taking strong action to reduce emissions) now, Stern says, we can prevent huge future costs – economically and ecologically. Again – think local/global/butterflies and consider treating a cut as a small cost that prevents infection (threat to the entire system) and expensive treatment (or perhaps no possible treatment) down the line. Echoing the Native American philosophy of the 7th generation, Stern writes, “Such a modeling framework has to take into account ethical judgments on the distribution of income and on how to treat future generations.” Turn then to social costs, the real cost of things: what is the real cost of a Styrofoam cup if we think about the resources it takes and the landfill space to get rid of it? If we start paying the real cost of what we use – perspectives shift and habits change. Such collective conceptual shifts are necessary, but drastic measures are called for, as Stern argues, “A shared global perspective on the urgency of the problem and on the long-term goals for climate change policy, and an international approach based on multilateral frameworks and coordinated action, are essential to respond to the scale of the challenge.” Perhaps then the mantra shifts to become “Think Globally, Act Globally.” And act now.
A quick look at the critics reveals: conservatives bash Stern for playing chicken little, while environmentalists say he hasn’t gone far enough. Overall the work seems balanced to me, and lays out the enormity of issues in a way that speaks to people’s hearts and their bottom line at the same time, for in his words, “Delay would be costly and dangerous.” Furthermore, as he puts it, even if the specifics are wrong, the risks are so great that, “Uncertainty is an argument for a more, not less, demanding goal, because of the size of the adverse climate-change impacts in the worst-case scenario.” One more thing, in a recent interview, James Lovelock – originator of the Gaia theory of the earth as organism – suggests we may already be too late to avoid catastrophe. That said, he seems unconcerned, as from the view of the earth as organism, less people isn’t a bad thing. Read it here if you’re interested: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html
A question: The U.S. has been acting globally in terms of fighting communism, spreading democracy, nation building, health issues, policing, and more over the years. Perhaps if we’re concerned about our health, our security, our economy, and our future, the most important thing we can do – and do now – is take action and be leaders on reducing emissions and addressing ecological concerns around the world. In the process, as Stern says, we work with others and as I started with – perhaps these little steps lead to other things…. What should this country’s role be? How much do we pressure our leaders to make these sorts of changes? (And acting locally) what can we do within our own lives?
The Bottom Billion
All of these essays point to how we’re all connected – in this essay a key thought is: the growing disparity of wealth between bottom and top 5 billion is not just their problem “it matters to us.” We’re all connected. Thus, it requires complex, multilevel solutions.
Author identifies the problem as one of traps: 1) the conflict trap 2) the natural resources trap 3) the trap of being landlocked with bad neighbors 4) the trap of bad governance in a small country.
This Bottom billion have been declining in growth since 1970s - >>It’s a picture of divergence – not development.
Arguments that we’ve beaten bigger things – like communism, fascism, and disease, and Cuba is a failure seem pretty weak and unsupported. However, identifies factors of lack of growth well. The wage gap cycle and so on.
Talking about loss of “best and brightest” from nations, loss of critical mass of educated people. This I see as true as coming from Detroit – those who can leave – do.
These Traps are difficult to escape – presents blueprint. Closes with: “we cannot rescue them” “only can be rescued from within.” Seems true. We can offer aid, ideas, but ultimately a people have to arrive at a place together to make it work – nation building from above never seems to yield much…
Jeffrey Sachs lecture on sustainable development:
As with Stern review, connects economics and ecology and “rarely do the two meet.” His talk combines the two, and advises to keep both in sight when working on problems – we can fight poverty and save the planet at the same time.
Interesting to think of Asia’s economic growth today, as truly only reflecting its historically large population – that only in relatively recent times was “behind” in development.
>>Brief talk about ecosystem stresses. (functioning of oceans, rivers, atmospheres.) Invasive species wreaking havoc in new environments – have seen this since ships could carry rats and disease…
Asks: “Can world get together” referencing Nicholas Stern Report.
**** The most important aspect is “empathy.” Need to learn to care, to see through others eyes, stand in their shoes, see another perspective. Helps break down us versus them. The threats we face are common to us all.
Solving these problems will take management and leadership skills – cooperation and coordination are vital….
Fear of Small Numbers – the geography of Anger
Where does culturally motivated violence come from in liberal-democratic societies?
The idea of the nation-state, and thus the “national ethos” is dangerous. A singular view of a nation’s people even when embracing the idea of togetherness – creates majority and minority. Arendt and others: the idea of a national people-hood is the Achilles’ heel of modern liberal society. Suggests direct path from national genius to a totalized cosmology of sacred nation eventually to ethnic purity than cleansing….
“Social uncertainty in social life” can lead to ethnic cleansing. Separating “We” from “they.” One kind of uncertainty – how many “theys” are there? How do we define they? Is some appear to be a we but is really a they? These uncertainties can lead to violence – to ensure certainty. Globalization exacerbates uncertainties. “Anxiety of incompleteness” – trouble with majority and minority… not a complete majority with those “Small numbers” as they remind majorities of small gap between an unsullied national whole, pure national ethos. “Narcissism of minor differences” dangerous than before as how easy it is to become other – creates more fear of loss of identity, power of majority….
Globalization exacerbates conditions of large scale violence because it produces a potential collision course between logics of uncertainty and incompleteness….
>>Curiously contrary to Maxine Greene’s ideas of uncertainty and incompleteness. Where she embraces them, societies sees them as a lack.
Powerful quote: Philip Gourevitch re: Rwanda: “Genocide, after all, is an exercise in community-building.”
Vertebrate vs. Cellular systems.
Vertebrate – nation-state, central order, set of norms, flags, stamps, airlines
Cellular – connected yet not vertically managed, coordinated yet remarkably independent, capable of replication without central messaging structures, hazy in central organizational features yet crystal clear in their cellular strategies and effects – aided by Internet, very much like capitalist world and corporations moving from multi-national to transnational to global.
Terror>>Epistemological assault on us all – destabilizes idea that peace is natural state of order and nation-state is guarantor of such order.
Need to look at minorities in nation-state and marginalization of nation-state by globalization….
>>Minorities are a recent social and demographic category and today they activate new worries about rights, citizenship, belonging, entitlement, etc. Become scapegoats, an in globalization era: “Minorities are the major site for displacing anxieties of many states about their own minority or marginality (real or imagined) … Minorities are metaphors, reminders of betrayal of classical national project – nation-states failure to preserve its promise – needs scapegoats – need to eliminate minorities….
Paradox: violence, especially at the national level, requires minorities… So: why kill the weak? An argument of we/they. Fear they’ll be turned into minority unless existing minority disappears first. (Anxiety of incompleteness.) Nazis and Jews – used political propaganda to incite this fear. Could then extend it to other minorities. To construct a German identity had to eliminate otherness – Jews…. Arendt: “banality of evil.” Reduce minorities to “others” – make it easier to hate…
“One” is the smallest important number for liberalism – one nation, undivided… Minorities break up this “oneness…” We allow for procedural dissent (temporary), but substantive dissent – permanent
>>The point here is that small numbers can unsettle big issues, especially in countries like India, where the rights of minorities are directly connected to larger arguments about the role of the state, etc.
>>“As abstractions produced by census techniques and liberal proceduralism, majorities can always be mobilized to think that they are in danger of becoming minor (culturally or numerically) and to fear that minorities, conversely, can easily become major (through brute accelerated reproduction or subtler legal or political means).”
Stern Review – Short commentary for 012809
The overview: “climate change presents very serious global risks and demands an urgent global response.”
From the outset of the Stern Review, I’m thinking of the mantra of the environmental movement “Think Globally, Act locally.” I connect it to the idea that small actions can have big impacts – in dynamical systems this is the “butterfly effect.” We can apply this to time – by acting today, in seemingly small ways, we can influence tomorrow in not so small ways. The premise here is that in order to counteract the catastrophe of our own making – we have to take such steps today.
The heart of the Stern Review is in the convergence of economics and ecology (as is reiterated by Sachs in his lecture), two things which are often at odds. But both stem from the Greek root “oikos” or house. Nomos=managing, hence economy is “household management.” Logia is study of, thus it’s the study of the house – or interrelationship of organisms and their environment. One more, ecosystem (house-system) – consists of everything living in the house and the house itself – all interdependent on one another. Thus, realizing our planet as an interdependent system, in order to care about either economics or ecology, we realize that we need to be concerned with both.
By mitigating (taking strong action to reduce emissions) now, Stern says, we can prevent huge future costs – economically and ecologically. Again, think local/global, butterflies – or consider, cleaning a small cut and putting a band-aid on it is a small cost, but it prevents infection, the treatment of which is expensive and threatening to your entire organism. Seeing the connections between things, between our system/planet as a whole is essential. If we wait to disaster strikes, it’s often too late – we have to amputate or worse… Systems of water and air flow throughout the planet like arteries connecting us as a whole. Literally, “we’re in the same boat brother.” Rocking one end, affects the other.
Again, global/local – act now or pay later…. As Stern writes, “Such a modeling framework has to take into account ethical judgments on the distribution of income and on how to treat future generations.” Our previous president dismissed his actions as being up to historians to judge. What if instead we think of the effect of our actions on future generations – to borrow the native American philosophy – think of the seventh generation. Thus the costs of mitigation today, pale in comparison to the costs of mitigation tomorrow, should we fail to do so today. Stern talks of social costs of carbon, or the real costs of things. What about a Styrofoam cup? Nearly free, yet a huge use of resources and landfill space. If we considered the real costs of everything we use and have to start paying this cost – our perspective shifts and our buying habits change. We’d buy things that lasted and wouldn’t leave behind toxic residue when they finally had to be put out to pasture.
The need for taking significant action now is presented here: “The current evidence suggests aiming for stabilization somewhere within the range of 450-550ppm CO2e. Anything higher would substantially increase the risks of very harmful impacts while reducing the costs of mitigation by comparatively little. Aiming for the lower end of this range would mean the costs of mitigation would be likely to rise rapidly. Anything lower would certainly impose very high adjustment costs in the near term for small gains and might not even be feasible, not least because of past delays in taking strong action.” That is, if we’re willing to pay a little today, we won’t be stuck with an unpayable bill tomorrow. And so with the stakes this high, perhaps the mantra stated at the outset shifts somewhat and becomes “think global, act global.” As Stern puts it, “A shared global perspective on the urgency of the problem and on the long-term goals for climate change policy, and an international approach based on multilateral frameworks and coordinated action, are essential to respond to the scale of the challenge.” We’ve got to get it together, together. “Above all, reducing the risks of climate change requires collective action. … Delay would be costly and dangerous.”
I looked briefly at some criticisms of the Stern Review. On the conservative side of things he was bashed for playing chicken little, while environmentalists say he hasn’t gone far enough. Overall it seems balanced to me, and lays out the enormity of issues in a way that speaks to people’s hearts and bottom line. Furthermore, as he puts it himself, even if the specifics are wrong, the risks are so great that, “Uncertainty is an argument for a more, not less, demanding goal, because of the size of the adverse climate-change impacts in the worst-case scenario.”
One more thing, as I typed this up, I happened upon an interview with James Lovelock – originator of the Gaia theory of the earth as an organism. Scarily, Lovelock suggests we may already be too late to avoid catastrophe. That said, Lovelock seems unconcerned, as from the view of the earth as organism, less people isn’t a bad thing. Read it here if you’re interested: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html
From the outset of the Stern Review, I’m thinking of the mantra of the environmental movement “Think Globally, Act locally.” I connect it to the idea that small actions can have big impacts – in dynamical systems this is the “butterfly effect.” We can apply this to time – by acting today, in seemingly small ways, we can influence tomorrow in not so small ways. The premise here is that in order to counteract the catastrophe of our own making – we have to take such steps today.
The heart of the Stern Review is in the convergence of economics and ecology (as is reiterated by Sachs in his lecture), two things which are often at odds. But both stem from the Greek root “oikos” or house. Nomos=managing, hence economy is “household management.” Logia is study of, thus it’s the study of the house – or interrelationship of organisms and their environment. One more, ecosystem (house-system) – consists of everything living in the house and the house itself – all interdependent on one another. Thus, realizing our planet as an interdependent system, in order to care about either economics or ecology, we realize that we need to be concerned with both.
By mitigating (taking strong action to reduce emissions) now, Stern says, we can prevent huge future costs – economically and ecologically. Again, think local/global, butterflies – or consider, cleaning a small cut and putting a band-aid on it is a small cost, but it prevents infection, the treatment of which is expensive and threatening to your entire organism. Seeing the connections between things, between our system/planet as a whole is essential. If we wait to disaster strikes, it’s often too late – we have to amputate or worse… Systems of water and air flow throughout the planet like arteries connecting us as a whole. Literally, “we’re in the same boat brother.” Rocking one end, affects the other.
Again, global/local – act now or pay later…. As Stern writes, “Such a modeling framework has to take into account ethical judgments on the distribution of income and on how to treat future generations.” Our previous president dismissed his actions as being up to historians to judge. What if instead we think of the effect of our actions on future generations – to borrow the native American philosophy – think of the seventh generation. Thus the costs of mitigation today, pale in comparison to the costs of mitigation tomorrow, should we fail to do so today. Stern talks of social costs of carbon, or the real costs of things. What about a Styrofoam cup? Nearly free, yet a huge use of resources and landfill space. If we considered the real costs of everything we use and have to start paying this cost – our perspective shifts and our buying habits change. We’d buy things that lasted and wouldn’t leave behind toxic residue when they finally had to be put out to pasture.
The need for taking significant action now is presented here: “The current evidence suggests aiming for stabilization somewhere within the range of 450-550ppm CO2e. Anything higher would substantially increase the risks of very harmful impacts while reducing the costs of mitigation by comparatively little. Aiming for the lower end of this range would mean the costs of mitigation would be likely to rise rapidly. Anything lower would certainly impose very high adjustment costs in the near term for small gains and might not even be feasible, not least because of past delays in taking strong action.” That is, if we’re willing to pay a little today, we won’t be stuck with an unpayable bill tomorrow. And so with the stakes this high, perhaps the mantra stated at the outset shifts somewhat and becomes “think global, act global.” As Stern puts it, “A shared global perspective on the urgency of the problem and on the long-term goals for climate change policy, and an international approach based on multilateral frameworks and coordinated action, are essential to respond to the scale of the challenge.” We’ve got to get it together, together. “Above all, reducing the risks of climate change requires collective action. … Delay would be costly and dangerous.”
I looked briefly at some criticisms of the Stern Review. On the conservative side of things he was bashed for playing chicken little, while environmentalists say he hasn’t gone far enough. Overall it seems balanced to me, and lays out the enormity of issues in a way that speaks to people’s hearts and bottom line. Furthermore, as he puts it himself, even if the specifics are wrong, the risks are so great that, “Uncertainty is an argument for a more, not less, demanding goal, because of the size of the adverse climate-change impacts in the worst-case scenario.”
One more thing, as I typed this up, I happened upon an interview with James Lovelock – originator of the Gaia theory of the earth as an organism. Scarily, Lovelock suggests we may already be too late to avoid catastrophe. That said, Lovelock seems unconcerned, as from the view of the earth as organism, less people isn’t a bad thing. Read it here if you’re interested: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html
Other readings for 012809 - Long Version
The Bottom Billion
Interesting to think of bottom billion coexisting with 21st century while their reality is 14th century.
Key thought: the growing disparity of wealth between bottom and top 5 billion is not just their problem “it matters to us.” We’re all connected.
Deny problem – by development biz and development buzz. D. biz=aid agencies, etc., who avoid the bottom. D. Buzz is celebrities and NGOs – focuses on bottom but simplifies solutions to get message heard. Problem requires complex, multilevel solutions.
“All societies used to be poor. Most are now lifting out of it; why are others stuck? The answer is traps?” Nice analogy with chutes and ladders – ladders raise societies up, chutes send them sliding back down.
Address the four traps: 1) the conflict trap 2) the natural resources trap 3) the trap of being landlocked with bad neighbors 4) the trap of bad governance in a small country.
Bottom billion is Africa+.
As countries have been improving, bottom billion has been declining since 1970s. “The growth of the bottom billion remains much slower at its peak than even the slowest growth in the rest of the developing world and brings them about back to where they were in 1970.”
>>It’s a picture of divergence – not development.
China and India broke free, entered global markets and are accelerating.
Poverty reduction vs. growth rates. Our author is stressing the importance of GROWTH. Places that are trapped have not had any growth.
- Cuba as failure? Why: “to my mind, development is about giving hope to ordinary people that their children will live in a society that has caught up with the rest of the world. Take that hope away and the smart people will use their energies not to develop their society but to escape from it….
>> Seems like a limited view about development, also what about within our own borders – places that aren’t developing?
Calls problem serious but fixable – says we’ve beaten bigger things – disease, fascism, and communism.
>>I’d argue on all three counts. And not sure that communism per se is an evil. Disease is still rampant, and fascists hang out in our midst – and put on the face of democracy….
Krugman and Tony Venables – concerning wage gap – wide enough for people to take advantage of. Explanation of shift in manufacturing. “Admittedly jobs are far from wonderful, but they are an improvement on the drudgery and boredom of a small farm, or of hanging around on a street corner trying to sell cigarettes. As jobs become plentiful they provide a degree of economic security not just for the people who get them but for the families behind the workers….”
>>Problematic in a few ways – “improvement over drudgery” – says who? This doesn’t seem like a perspective of understanding the people they’re talking about. Understand how it points to Asia and why some places grow and others are trapped.
Asks, when will the boat come around again? When will the bottom be able to compete in global markets? Back to wage gap idea – have to wait a long time until development in Asia creates a wage gap with the bottom billion similar to the massive gap the prevailed between Asia and the rich world around 1980. --- Cycle of who’s at the bottom.
Talking about flow of capital – says it’s not zero sum – it’s not your gain is my loss. Source of suspicion of globalization.
How to convince potential sources of capital you’re the real deal – difficult, hard to tell bogus reformer from serious one. Have to take drastic, serious steps as a government.
Emigration robs bottom of “best and brightest” – have most to gain by moving… true to some extent, but seems an overgeneralization.
-- to achieve turnaround – country needs critical mass of educated people. Bottom billion is desperately short and getting worse. >> Seems true in Detroit (my former home) as well. Those who can leave – do after a while.
Traps are difficult to escape – presents blueprint. Closes with: “we cannot rescue them” “only can be rescued from within.”
Jeffrey Sachs lecture on sustainable development:
Talks about economics and ecology and “rarely do the two meet.” His talk combines the two, and advises to keep both in sight when working on problems – we can fight poverty and save the planet at the same time.
- Asia’s economic growth today, really only reflects its historically large population – that only in relatively recent times was “behind” in development.
>>Brief talk about ecosystem stresses. (functioning of oceans, rivers, atmospheres.) Invasive species wreaking havoc in new environments – have seen this since ships could carry rats and disease…
Asks: “Can world get together” referencing Nicholas Stern Report.
**** The most important aspect is “empathy.” Need to learn to care, to see through others eyes, stand in their shoes, see another perspective. Helps break down us versus them. The threats we face are common to us all.
Solving these problems will take management and leadership skills – cooperation and coordination are vital….
Fear of Small Numbers – the geography of Anger
Looking at culturally motivated violence. See now that liberal-democratic societies are susceptible to capture by majoritarian forces and large-scale ethnocidal violence. Where does this violence in the form of ethnic cleansing and terrorism come from in the face of expansion of human rights, opening of markets, new ideas about governing?
1st: fundamental, dangerous idea behind idea of modern nation-state – “national ethos.” This singular view of a nation’s people even when embracing the idea of togetherness – creates majority and minority.
Arendt and others: the idea of a national people-hood is the Achilles’ heel of modern liberal society.
Suggests direct path from national genius to a totalized cosmology of sacred nation eventually to ethnic purity than cleansing….
“Social uncertainty in social life” can lead to ethnic cleansing. Separating “We” from “they.”
More theys are created across boundaries (cuz of technology, etc.) – not less in counter to Weberian philosophy – suggesting political systems bring us together.
One kind of uncertainty – how many “theys” are there? How do we define they? Is some appear to be a we but is really a they?
These uncertainties can lead to violence – to ensure certainty.
“where the lines between us and them may have always, in human history, been blurred at the boundaries and unclear across large spaces and big numbers, globalization exacerbates these uncertainties and produces new incentives for cultural purification as more nations lose the illusion of national economic sovereignty or well-being.”
-- illusion of fixed and charged identities produced allays uncertainties…
Philip Gourevitch re: Rwanda: “Genocide, after all, is an exercise in community-building.”
2 Europes: one enlightened, inclusive, other anxious and xenophobic.
“Anxiety of incompleteness” – trouble with majority and minority… not a complete majority with those “Small numbers” as they remind majorities of small gap between an unsullied national whole, pure national ethos.
Globalization exacerbates conditions of large scale violence because it produces a potential collision course between logics of uncertainty and incompleteness….
>>Curiously contrary to Maxine Greene’s ideas of uncertainty and incompleteness. Where she embraces them, societies sees them as a lack.
This argument based on interconnectedness of these ideas of globalization, uncertainty, and incompleteness.
1990s violence based on “surplus of rage, excess of hatred” produces degradation and violation both to body and being of victim – torture, rape, etc…
“Narcissism of minor differences” dangerous than before as how easy it is to become other – creates more fear of loss of identity, power of majority….
No longer true: nation-state is sole owner of large-scale decisions to conduct war and make enduring arrangements for peace; that social order in everyday life is default state; and there is a deep and natural distinction between the social disorder within societies and war across societies.
Shattered after 9/11. Warfare no longer property of nation-state. 9/11 a war against America but also against idea that states are only game in town. Massive act of social punishment.
Calls this civilization of clashes rather than clash of civilizations….
Calls war in Afghanistan “diagnostic” to discover who Al-Qaeda is, etc… War between two systems.
Vertebrate vs. Cellular systems.
Vertebrate – nation-state, central order, set of norms, flags, stamps, airlines
Cellular – connected yet not vertically managed, coordinated yet remarkably independent, capable of replication without central messaging structures, hazy in central organizational features yet crystal clear in their cellular strategies and effects – aided by Internet, very much like capitalist world…
In companies moving from multi-national to transnational to global – hard to assess within a nation. Cellular like. Seeds for Cellular organizations in globalization.
Globalization – driven by speculative capital, new financial instruments, and high-speed information technologies – creates new tensions that it can roam anywhere in face of fantasy of nation-state.
Terrorism – keeping people in constant fear, the new norm.
Achilles Mbembe: new landscape not of war and peace but of order organized around terror.
>>Epistemological assault on us all – destabilizes idea that peace is natural state of order and nation-state is guarantor of such order.
Need to look at minorities in nation-state and marginalization of nation-state by globalization….
Globalization in small countries – fear of inclusion and fear of exclusion…
Prison industry in US – tied to dynamics of regional economies pushed out of other more humane forms of employment and wealth creation…
Violence against women in Taliban – in US, still domestic violence. Youth armies in Africa – violence in gangs…
“Maps of states and the maps of warfare no longer fit an older, realist geography.”
Not clash of civilizations – as they are intracivilizational…
“econocide…”
>>Minorities are a recent social and demographic category and today they activate new worries about rights, citizenship, belonging, entitlement, etc. Become scapegoats, an in globalization era: “Minorities are the major site for displacing anxieties of many states about their own minority or marginality (real or imagined) in a world of a few megastates, of unruly economic flows and compromised sovereignties.
Minorities are metaphors, reminders of betrayal of classical national project – nation-states failure to preserve its promise – needs scapegoats – need to eliminate minorities….
Paradox: violence, especially at the national level, requires minorities…
So: why kill the weak? An argument of we/they. “Predatory” – those identities who require extinction of other to maintain their identity and survival. Fear they’ll be turned into minority unless existing minority disappears first. (Anxiety of incompleteness.) Nazis and Jews – used political propaganda to incite this fear. Could then extend it to other minorities. To construct a German identity had to eliminate otherness – Jews…. Arendt: “banality of evil.” Reduce minorities to “others” – make it easier to hate…
What conditions are right for liberal societies to make this shift?
“One” is the smallest important number for liberalism – one nation, undivided…
Minorities break up this “oneness…”
We allow for procedural dissent (temporary), but substantive dissent – permanent
India example (Slumdog millionaire – genocide of Christians…) World’s largest democracy can become Hinduized polity…
>>The point here is that small numbers can unsettle big issues, especially in countries like India, where the rights of minorities are directly connected to larger arguments about the role of the state, etc.
Suicide bomber is darkest possible version of liberal value place on individual – on number “one.” Introduces uncertainty – appears to be normal…
>>“As abstractions produced by census techniques and liberal proceduralism, majorities can always be mobilized to think that they are in danger of becoming minor (culturally or numerically) and to fear that minorities, conversely, can easily become major (through brute accelerated reproduction or subtler legal or political means).”
Interesting to think of bottom billion coexisting with 21st century while their reality is 14th century.
Key thought: the growing disparity of wealth between bottom and top 5 billion is not just their problem “it matters to us.” We’re all connected.
Deny problem – by development biz and development buzz. D. biz=aid agencies, etc., who avoid the bottom. D. Buzz is celebrities and NGOs – focuses on bottom but simplifies solutions to get message heard. Problem requires complex, multilevel solutions.
“All societies used to be poor. Most are now lifting out of it; why are others stuck? The answer is traps?” Nice analogy with chutes and ladders – ladders raise societies up, chutes send them sliding back down.
Address the four traps: 1) the conflict trap 2) the natural resources trap 3) the trap of being landlocked with bad neighbors 4) the trap of bad governance in a small country.
Bottom billion is Africa+.
As countries have been improving, bottom billion has been declining since 1970s. “The growth of the bottom billion remains much slower at its peak than even the slowest growth in the rest of the developing world and brings them about back to where they were in 1970.”
>>It’s a picture of divergence – not development.
China and India broke free, entered global markets and are accelerating.
Poverty reduction vs. growth rates. Our author is stressing the importance of GROWTH. Places that are trapped have not had any growth.
- Cuba as failure? Why: “to my mind, development is about giving hope to ordinary people that their children will live in a society that has caught up with the rest of the world. Take that hope away and the smart people will use their energies not to develop their society but to escape from it….
>> Seems like a limited view about development, also what about within our own borders – places that aren’t developing?
Calls problem serious but fixable – says we’ve beaten bigger things – disease, fascism, and communism.
>>I’d argue on all three counts. And not sure that communism per se is an evil. Disease is still rampant, and fascists hang out in our midst – and put on the face of democracy….
Krugman and Tony Venables – concerning wage gap – wide enough for people to take advantage of. Explanation of shift in manufacturing. “Admittedly jobs are far from wonderful, but they are an improvement on the drudgery and boredom of a small farm, or of hanging around on a street corner trying to sell cigarettes. As jobs become plentiful they provide a degree of economic security not just for the people who get them but for the families behind the workers….”
>>Problematic in a few ways – “improvement over drudgery” – says who? This doesn’t seem like a perspective of understanding the people they’re talking about. Understand how it points to Asia and why some places grow and others are trapped.
Asks, when will the boat come around again? When will the bottom be able to compete in global markets? Back to wage gap idea – have to wait a long time until development in Asia creates a wage gap with the bottom billion similar to the massive gap the prevailed between Asia and the rich world around 1980. --- Cycle of who’s at the bottom.
Talking about flow of capital – says it’s not zero sum – it’s not your gain is my loss. Source of suspicion of globalization.
How to convince potential sources of capital you’re the real deal – difficult, hard to tell bogus reformer from serious one. Have to take drastic, serious steps as a government.
Emigration robs bottom of “best and brightest” – have most to gain by moving… true to some extent, but seems an overgeneralization.
-- to achieve turnaround – country needs critical mass of educated people. Bottom billion is desperately short and getting worse. >> Seems true in Detroit (my former home) as well. Those who can leave – do after a while.
Traps are difficult to escape – presents blueprint. Closes with: “we cannot rescue them” “only can be rescued from within.”
Jeffrey Sachs lecture on sustainable development:
Talks about economics and ecology and “rarely do the two meet.” His talk combines the two, and advises to keep both in sight when working on problems – we can fight poverty and save the planet at the same time.
- Asia’s economic growth today, really only reflects its historically large population – that only in relatively recent times was “behind” in development.
>>Brief talk about ecosystem stresses. (functioning of oceans, rivers, atmospheres.) Invasive species wreaking havoc in new environments – have seen this since ships could carry rats and disease…
Asks: “Can world get together” referencing Nicholas Stern Report.
**** The most important aspect is “empathy.” Need to learn to care, to see through others eyes, stand in their shoes, see another perspective. Helps break down us versus them. The threats we face are common to us all.
Solving these problems will take management and leadership skills – cooperation and coordination are vital….
Fear of Small Numbers – the geography of Anger
Looking at culturally motivated violence. See now that liberal-democratic societies are susceptible to capture by majoritarian forces and large-scale ethnocidal violence. Where does this violence in the form of ethnic cleansing and terrorism come from in the face of expansion of human rights, opening of markets, new ideas about governing?
1st: fundamental, dangerous idea behind idea of modern nation-state – “national ethos.” This singular view of a nation’s people even when embracing the idea of togetherness – creates majority and minority.
Arendt and others: the idea of a national people-hood is the Achilles’ heel of modern liberal society.
Suggests direct path from national genius to a totalized cosmology of sacred nation eventually to ethnic purity than cleansing….
“Social uncertainty in social life” can lead to ethnic cleansing. Separating “We” from “they.”
More theys are created across boundaries (cuz of technology, etc.) – not less in counter to Weberian philosophy – suggesting political systems bring us together.
One kind of uncertainty – how many “theys” are there? How do we define they? Is some appear to be a we but is really a they?
These uncertainties can lead to violence – to ensure certainty.
“where the lines between us and them may have always, in human history, been blurred at the boundaries and unclear across large spaces and big numbers, globalization exacerbates these uncertainties and produces new incentives for cultural purification as more nations lose the illusion of national economic sovereignty or well-being.”
-- illusion of fixed and charged identities produced allays uncertainties…
Philip Gourevitch re: Rwanda: “Genocide, after all, is an exercise in community-building.”
2 Europes: one enlightened, inclusive, other anxious and xenophobic.
“Anxiety of incompleteness” – trouble with majority and minority… not a complete majority with those “Small numbers” as they remind majorities of small gap between an unsullied national whole, pure national ethos.
Globalization exacerbates conditions of large scale violence because it produces a potential collision course between logics of uncertainty and incompleteness….
>>Curiously contrary to Maxine Greene’s ideas of uncertainty and incompleteness. Where she embraces them, societies sees them as a lack.
This argument based on interconnectedness of these ideas of globalization, uncertainty, and incompleteness.
1990s violence based on “surplus of rage, excess of hatred” produces degradation and violation both to body and being of victim – torture, rape, etc…
“Narcissism of minor differences” dangerous than before as how easy it is to become other – creates more fear of loss of identity, power of majority….
No longer true: nation-state is sole owner of large-scale decisions to conduct war and make enduring arrangements for peace; that social order in everyday life is default state; and there is a deep and natural distinction between the social disorder within societies and war across societies.
Shattered after 9/11. Warfare no longer property of nation-state. 9/11 a war against America but also against idea that states are only game in town. Massive act of social punishment.
Calls this civilization of clashes rather than clash of civilizations….
Calls war in Afghanistan “diagnostic” to discover who Al-Qaeda is, etc… War between two systems.
Vertebrate vs. Cellular systems.
Vertebrate – nation-state, central order, set of norms, flags, stamps, airlines
Cellular – connected yet not vertically managed, coordinated yet remarkably independent, capable of replication without central messaging structures, hazy in central organizational features yet crystal clear in their cellular strategies and effects – aided by Internet, very much like capitalist world…
In companies moving from multi-national to transnational to global – hard to assess within a nation. Cellular like. Seeds for Cellular organizations in globalization.
Globalization – driven by speculative capital, new financial instruments, and high-speed information technologies – creates new tensions that it can roam anywhere in face of fantasy of nation-state.
Terrorism – keeping people in constant fear, the new norm.
Achilles Mbembe: new landscape not of war and peace but of order organized around terror.
>>Epistemological assault on us all – destabilizes idea that peace is natural state of order and nation-state is guarantor of such order.
Need to look at minorities in nation-state and marginalization of nation-state by globalization….
Globalization in small countries – fear of inclusion and fear of exclusion…
Prison industry in US – tied to dynamics of regional economies pushed out of other more humane forms of employment and wealth creation…
Violence against women in Taliban – in US, still domestic violence. Youth armies in Africa – violence in gangs…
“Maps of states and the maps of warfare no longer fit an older, realist geography.”
Not clash of civilizations – as they are intracivilizational…
“econocide…”
>>Minorities are a recent social and demographic category and today they activate new worries about rights, citizenship, belonging, entitlement, etc. Become scapegoats, an in globalization era: “Minorities are the major site for displacing anxieties of many states about their own minority or marginality (real or imagined) in a world of a few megastates, of unruly economic flows and compromised sovereignties.
Minorities are metaphors, reminders of betrayal of classical national project – nation-states failure to preserve its promise – needs scapegoats – need to eliminate minorities….
Paradox: violence, especially at the national level, requires minorities…
So: why kill the weak? An argument of we/they. “Predatory” – those identities who require extinction of other to maintain their identity and survival. Fear they’ll be turned into minority unless existing minority disappears first. (Anxiety of incompleteness.) Nazis and Jews – used political propaganda to incite this fear. Could then extend it to other minorities. To construct a German identity had to eliminate otherness – Jews…. Arendt: “banality of evil.” Reduce minorities to “others” – make it easier to hate…
What conditions are right for liberal societies to make this shift?
“One” is the smallest important number for liberalism – one nation, undivided…
Minorities break up this “oneness…”
We allow for procedural dissent (temporary), but substantive dissent – permanent
India example (Slumdog millionaire – genocide of Christians…) World’s largest democracy can become Hinduized polity…
>>The point here is that small numbers can unsettle big issues, especially in countries like India, where the rights of minorities are directly connected to larger arguments about the role of the state, etc.
Suicide bomber is darkest possible version of liberal value place on individual – on number “one.” Introduces uncertainty – appears to be normal…
>>“As abstractions produced by census techniques and liberal proceduralism, majorities can always be mobilized to think that they are in danger of becoming minor (culturally or numerically) and to fear that minorities, conversely, can easily become major (through brute accelerated reproduction or subtler legal or political means).”
Monday, January 26, 2009
Stern Review – commentary for 012809 (LONG VERSION)
(short one coming...)
“The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change presents very serious global risks, and it demands an urgent global response.”
~ Immediately I’m thinking of the mantra of the environmental movement “Think Globally, Act locally.” This persists throughout the document.
“Climate change is global in its causes and consequences, and international collective action will be critical in driving an effective, efficient and international collective action will be critical in driving an effective, efficient and equitable response on the scale required.”
~It may take disaster to show just how tightly we are all connected. The dynamics of weather and the butterfly effect demonstrate this – small things create big things – this thought will be reiterated.
“Climate change presents a unique challenge for economics: it is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen. The economics analysis must therefore be global, deal with long time horizons, have the economics of risk and uncertainty at centre stage …. [para] this will look at important areas of economics…”
~ My key theme from this is the connection between economics, ecosystems, and ecology. Often seen as being at odds – they share the same root and it seems it takes a looming crisis to weave them back together.
Some definitions:
• Economy: “household management” from the Greek – “oikonomia” – household management. Oikos=house. Nomos=managing. An economist is a “household manager.”
• Ecology: Also from “oikos” = “house, dwelling place, habitation” “logia” = study of. Hence, the study of the interrelationship of organisms and their environments.
• Ecosystem: a “house” “system” – consists of everything living in the house and the house itself, thus the ecosystem is the living organisms and the nonliving physical factors that make up their environment, all interdependent on each other.
An economics that takes into account the interdependence of all its units is one that has to think about the environment and the cost of human actions on it – and how those effects can come back around and effect humans.
“The effects of our actions now on future changes in the climate have long lead times. What we do now can only have a limited effect on the climate over the next 40 or 50 years. On the other hand what we do in the next 10 or 20 years can have a profound effect on the climate in the second half of this century and in the next.”
~Again, “think global, act local” – let’s apply this to time. Global is the long view, local is short action. Small changes now over time can have great effect. Butterfly effect in action. Small things lead to big things.
“Mitigation – taking strong action to reduce emissions – must be viewed as an investment, a cost incurred now and in the coming few decades to avoid the risks of very severe consequences in the future.”
Three ways of considering the economic costs of impacts of climate change and costs and benefits of action to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases:
1) Disaggregated techniques – that is considering the physical impacts of climate change on the economy, human life, and on the environment.
2) Using economic models – estimate economic impacts of climate change and transition to low-carbon energy systems on economy
3) Comparisons of current and project “social cost of carbon” with marginal abatement costs.
His conclusion: the benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the costs.
“The scientific evidence points to increasing risks of serious, irreversible impacts from climate change associated with business-as-usual (BAU) paths for emissions.”
~ “Business-as-usual?” Suggests definite need to reconstruct what BAU means.
Mention of “dynamic feedbacks” – part of climate change – also of economic systems. Current greenhouse gases in atmosphere 430 ppm CO2, only 280ppm before the Industrial Revolution. World has already warmed more than half a degree Celsius. Another half a degree projected over the next few decades.
Talking of temperature increases of up to 5 degree Celsius: “Such changes would transform the physical geography of the world.” To say that this would have a significant effect on human lives is a huge understatement – it changes where we live, how we live, everything. Want to live on Mars, on Venus – exaggerations, sure, but the conditions for which human life survives is a tiny slice of a range. We’re a goldilocks species, too much, too little, too hot, too cold – we’re out of luck…
“Warming will have many severe impacts, often mediated through water” Continues on to talk of flood risks and eventual reduction of water supplies. Then crop yields, spread of diseases, loss of coastal cities, huge extinction of species with only 2 degree Celsius of warming. And more….
“The impacts of climate change are not evenly distributed – the poorest countries and people will suffer the earliest and most. And if and when the damages appear it will be too late to reverse the process. Thus we are forced to look a long way ahead.”
Discussion this statement – developing regions tend to be warmer already as it is. These areas are dependent on agriculture – which will be hit heavily. Low incomes already don’t help either. Exacerbate differences between rich and poor still further as a result.
Whatever benefits of warming for cold weather latitudes, offset by other losses.
“The monetary impacts of climate change are now expected to be more serious than many earlier studies suggested, not least because those studies tended to exclude some of the most uncertain but potentially most damaging impacts.”
Talks about even greater temperature increases – saying earlier estimates about warming may have been optimistic – these would take “us into territory unknown to human experience and involve radical changes in the world around us.” “With such possibilities on the horizon, it was clear that modeling framework used by this Review had to be built around the economics of risk.” Rather than averaging across possibilities – which conceals risks, which if they were to come true would be catastrophic.
~ Again, global/local – act now or pay later…. “Such a modeling framework has to take into account ethical judgments on the distribution of income and on how to treat future generations.”
This runs counter to GW Bush – saying it’s up to historians to judge how he did – why not think about future generations when we make decisions now. Think of the seventh generation as the native Americans did. We’ll return to that…
“The analysis should not focus only on narrow measures of income like GDP. The consequences of climate change for health and for the environment are likely to be severe. … Again, difficult conceptual, ethical, and measurement issues are involved, and the results have to be treated with due circumspection.”
Maintaining BAU, may have a greater impact than thought – taking into account impact on environment and human health, climate system may be more responsive to greenhouse-gas emissions than previously thought, and disproportionate effect on poor. … it’s difficult to make economic forecasts, just as it is to make climate change forecasts. “Much (but not all) of the risk can be reduced through a strong mitigation policy, and we argue that this can be achieved at a far lower cost than those calculated for the impacts. In this sense, mitigation is a highly productive investment.”
“Emissions have been, and continue to be, driven by economic growth; yet stabilization of greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere is feasible and consistent with continued growth.”
* “Yet despite the historical pattern and the BAU projections, the world does not need to choose between averting climate change and promoting growth and development.”
~ This is key – this means you can save the planet without having to stop doing business. Everyone wins.
“Overshoot” – allowing GHG to peak above stabilization level and then fall – unwise as it would mean reducing carbon emissions drastically and perhaps not feasibly – economically or practically.
4 ways to cut GHG emissions – reduce demand for emissions-intensive goods and services; increased efficiency; action on non-energy emissions (i.e. deforestation); switching to lower-carbon tech for power, heat and transport.
~ All of these again are little things – to create big things. All within reach, not difficult to achieve but their impact is great…
Goes on to estimate GDP cost of cutting carbon by 2050 – 1% of annual global.
~ Reduce is a necessary theme here – in building more efficient machines, in cutting down waste all along the way. Transport is hard to cut quickly, but ultimately necessary.
“Low-carbon economy brings challenges for competitiveness but also opportunities for growth.”
~ Obama’s inaugural speech spoke to the need to move in this sector – “Individual companies and countries should position themselves to take advantage of these opportunities.”
“Implementing climate policies may draw attention to money-saving opportunities” – again, this is local/global. Big theme here – marginal costs of abatement vs. the social cost of carbon. “Even if we have sensible policies in place, the social cost of carbon will also rise steadily over time, making more and more technological options for mitigation cost-effective.”
Key Paragraph: “The current evidence suggests aiming for stabilization somewhere within the range of 450-550ppm CO2e. Anything higher would substantially increase the risks of very harmful impacts while reducing the costs of mitigation by comparatively little. Aiming for the lower end of this range would mean the costs of mitigation would be likely to rise rapidly. Anything lower would certainly impose very high adjustment costs in the near term for small gains and might not even be feasible, not least because of past delays in taking strong action.” “Uncertainty is an argument for a more, not less, demanding goal, because of the size of the adverse climate-change impacts in the worst-case scenario.”
~ If we’re willing to pay a little today, we won’t be stuck with an unpayable bill tomorrow. It’s difficult to get people to see this, to see beyond the inconvenience of thinking beyond today. But there it is, if we don’t “sacrifice”, don’t cut back, address things now (and it may already be too late), tomorrow’s costs are out of this world – perhaps literally.
“Policy to reduce emissions should be based on three essential elements: carbon pricing, technology policy, and removal of barriers to behavioral change.”
1) Carbon pricing is first. “people are faced with the full social cost of their actions.”
~ This leads me to think of the real price of things – i.e. a Styrofoam cup. It may cost nothing to us – it comes free from after dinner or getting takeout, or almost nothing to buy and since the makers of it can’t be doing it at a loss, presumably it costs them even less to make it. Yet what then becomes of it. What is the cost in oil needed to produce it, in how it decomposes or doesn’t, the landfill cost, and so on. If we start looking at the real costs of everything we use – it shifts our perspective. And if we start having to pay the real cost for such things – no doubt this would change our buying habits. We’d buy things that lasted, things that could be touched over and over again and not leave behind a toxic residue when finally they had to be put out to pasture.
2) Tech policies – from R&D to demonstration and deployment. Helping low-carbon tech get a leg up, as it costs more in startup than existing tech, with the idea that it will cost less as more of it is available. “The knowledge gained from r&d is a public good; companies may underinvest in projects with a big social payoff if they fear they will be unable to capture the full benefits. Thus there are good economic reasons to promote new tech. directly.”
~ Do people do the right thing for the right reasons? Probably not enough of us do. Therefore by converging economics and ecology – if people are given a new reason to do something, a reason that they can understand in terms of dollars, perhaps they do the right thing regardless. In this way we trade teaching about ecology to teaching about economics – and people listen.
3) The removal of barriers to social change.
All of this speaks to “fostering a shared understanding of the nature of climate change and its consequences.” Changing our understanding is key, and we’ll return to this.
“Adaptation policy is crucial for dealing with the unavoidable impacts of climate change, but it has been under-emphasized in many countries.”
~ Act local: “Unlike mitigation, adaptation will in most cases provide local benefits, realized without long lead times.”
Need “financial safety net” for poorest in society, likely most vulnerable to impact. “Adaptation action should be integrated into development policy and planning at every level.”
Key * “An effective response to climate change will depend on creating the conditions for international collective action.”
~ Act global. “A shared global perspective on the urgency of the problem and on the long-term goals for climate change policy, and an international approach based on multilateral frameworks and co-ordinated action, are essential to respond to the scale of the challenge.”
~ We’ve got to get it together, together. – “international cooperation” on all aspects of reducing emissions. “Cooperation can be encouraged and sustained by greater transparency and comparability of national action.”
~ Stern suggests connecting various existing carbon trading schemes and those in development together can be beneficial. Here it seems is a nod to ecosystems – everything is interdependent.
Continues to press the need for international collaboration, understanding and cooperation. – think Global, act global.
On a practical level – now – “curbing deforestation is a highly cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” Again, tie this into the carbon markets.
Key * “Strong and early mitigation has a key role to play in limiting the long-run costs of adaptation. Without this, the cost of adaptation will rise dramatically.”
~ Think of cleaning a cut and putting on a band-aid, so it doesn’t get infected, prevents huge costs down the road. We can think of this in the organism that is ourselves, need to think about it in terms of the organism that is our planet, and as Stern suggests, organism that is our economy.
Key building block – “shared understanding, cooperation…
“Without a clear perspective on the long-term goals for stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, it is unlikely that action will be sufficient to meet the objective.”
Action must include: mitigation, innovation, and adaptation.
“There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change if strong collective action starts now.” “But it is already very clear that the economic risks of inaction in the face of climate change are very severe.”
“Above all, reducing the risks of climate change requires collective action. … Delay would be costly and dangerous.”
~ Shared understanding and see that “we’re in the same boat brother.” Need to think global and see that rocking one end has an effect on all of us….
As I typed this up, happened upon an interview in this week’s New Scientist with James Lovelock – who proposed the Gaia theory of the earth as an organism. Scarily, Lovelock suggests we may already be too late to avoid catastrophe. (Though he proposes one last ditch solution and bets we won’t do it.) That said, Lovelock seems unconcerned, as from the view of the earth as organism, less people isn’t a bad thing. Read it here if you’re interested: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html
Also, did other reading about the Stern Report. Seems much debated. Conservatives bash it for chicken little “sky is falling” while environments bash it for not going far enough. Seems pretty well balanced in my view – and it clearly identifies the enormity of the issues and the way in which we need to think about the problems. If specifics are wrong, well, we’re always learning more. But as the report emphasizing, if the high end of the risks are realized, we’re in trouble, better to start paying attention and asking the right questions…
“The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change presents very serious global risks, and it demands an urgent global response.”
~ Immediately I’m thinking of the mantra of the environmental movement “Think Globally, Act locally.” This persists throughout the document.
“Climate change is global in its causes and consequences, and international collective action will be critical in driving an effective, efficient and international collective action will be critical in driving an effective, efficient and equitable response on the scale required.”
~It may take disaster to show just how tightly we are all connected. The dynamics of weather and the butterfly effect demonstrate this – small things create big things – this thought will be reiterated.
“Climate change presents a unique challenge for economics: it is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen. The economics analysis must therefore be global, deal with long time horizons, have the economics of risk and uncertainty at centre stage …. [para] this will look at important areas of economics…”
~ My key theme from this is the connection between economics, ecosystems, and ecology. Often seen as being at odds – they share the same root and it seems it takes a looming crisis to weave them back together.
Some definitions:
• Economy: “household management” from the Greek – “oikonomia” – household management. Oikos=house. Nomos=managing. An economist is a “household manager.”
• Ecology: Also from “oikos” = “house, dwelling place, habitation” “logia” = study of. Hence, the study of the interrelationship of organisms and their environments.
• Ecosystem: a “house” “system” – consists of everything living in the house and the house itself, thus the ecosystem is the living organisms and the nonliving physical factors that make up their environment, all interdependent on each other.
An economics that takes into account the interdependence of all its units is one that has to think about the environment and the cost of human actions on it – and how those effects can come back around and effect humans.
“The effects of our actions now on future changes in the climate have long lead times. What we do now can only have a limited effect on the climate over the next 40 or 50 years. On the other hand what we do in the next 10 or 20 years can have a profound effect on the climate in the second half of this century and in the next.”
~Again, “think global, act local” – let’s apply this to time. Global is the long view, local is short action. Small changes now over time can have great effect. Butterfly effect in action. Small things lead to big things.
“Mitigation – taking strong action to reduce emissions – must be viewed as an investment, a cost incurred now and in the coming few decades to avoid the risks of very severe consequences in the future.”
Three ways of considering the economic costs of impacts of climate change and costs and benefits of action to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases:
1) Disaggregated techniques – that is considering the physical impacts of climate change on the economy, human life, and on the environment.
2) Using economic models – estimate economic impacts of climate change and transition to low-carbon energy systems on economy
3) Comparisons of current and project “social cost of carbon” with marginal abatement costs.
His conclusion: the benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the costs.
“The scientific evidence points to increasing risks of serious, irreversible impacts from climate change associated with business-as-usual (BAU) paths for emissions.”
~ “Business-as-usual?” Suggests definite need to reconstruct what BAU means.
Mention of “dynamic feedbacks” – part of climate change – also of economic systems. Current greenhouse gases in atmosphere 430 ppm CO2, only 280ppm before the Industrial Revolution. World has already warmed more than half a degree Celsius. Another half a degree projected over the next few decades.
Talking of temperature increases of up to 5 degree Celsius: “Such changes would transform the physical geography of the world.” To say that this would have a significant effect on human lives is a huge understatement – it changes where we live, how we live, everything. Want to live on Mars, on Venus – exaggerations, sure, but the conditions for which human life survives is a tiny slice of a range. We’re a goldilocks species, too much, too little, too hot, too cold – we’re out of luck…
“Warming will have many severe impacts, often mediated through water” Continues on to talk of flood risks and eventual reduction of water supplies. Then crop yields, spread of diseases, loss of coastal cities, huge extinction of species with only 2 degree Celsius of warming. And more….
“The impacts of climate change are not evenly distributed – the poorest countries and people will suffer the earliest and most. And if and when the damages appear it will be too late to reverse the process. Thus we are forced to look a long way ahead.”
Discussion this statement – developing regions tend to be warmer already as it is. These areas are dependent on agriculture – which will be hit heavily. Low incomes already don’t help either. Exacerbate differences between rich and poor still further as a result.
Whatever benefits of warming for cold weather latitudes, offset by other losses.
“The monetary impacts of climate change are now expected to be more serious than many earlier studies suggested, not least because those studies tended to exclude some of the most uncertain but potentially most damaging impacts.”
Talks about even greater temperature increases – saying earlier estimates about warming may have been optimistic – these would take “us into territory unknown to human experience and involve radical changes in the world around us.” “With such possibilities on the horizon, it was clear that modeling framework used by this Review had to be built around the economics of risk.” Rather than averaging across possibilities – which conceals risks, which if they were to come true would be catastrophic.
~ Again, global/local – act now or pay later…. “Such a modeling framework has to take into account ethical judgments on the distribution of income and on how to treat future generations.”
This runs counter to GW Bush – saying it’s up to historians to judge how he did – why not think about future generations when we make decisions now. Think of the seventh generation as the native Americans did. We’ll return to that…
“The analysis should not focus only on narrow measures of income like GDP. The consequences of climate change for health and for the environment are likely to be severe. … Again, difficult conceptual, ethical, and measurement issues are involved, and the results have to be treated with due circumspection.”
Maintaining BAU, may have a greater impact than thought – taking into account impact on environment and human health, climate system may be more responsive to greenhouse-gas emissions than previously thought, and disproportionate effect on poor. … it’s difficult to make economic forecasts, just as it is to make climate change forecasts. “Much (but not all) of the risk can be reduced through a strong mitigation policy, and we argue that this can be achieved at a far lower cost than those calculated for the impacts. In this sense, mitigation is a highly productive investment.”
“Emissions have been, and continue to be, driven by economic growth; yet stabilization of greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere is feasible and consistent with continued growth.”
* “Yet despite the historical pattern and the BAU projections, the world does not need to choose between averting climate change and promoting growth and development.”
~ This is key – this means you can save the planet without having to stop doing business. Everyone wins.
“Overshoot” – allowing GHG to peak above stabilization level and then fall – unwise as it would mean reducing carbon emissions drastically and perhaps not feasibly – economically or practically.
4 ways to cut GHG emissions – reduce demand for emissions-intensive goods and services; increased efficiency; action on non-energy emissions (i.e. deforestation); switching to lower-carbon tech for power, heat and transport.
~ All of these again are little things – to create big things. All within reach, not difficult to achieve but their impact is great…
Goes on to estimate GDP cost of cutting carbon by 2050 – 1% of annual global.
~ Reduce is a necessary theme here – in building more efficient machines, in cutting down waste all along the way. Transport is hard to cut quickly, but ultimately necessary.
“Low-carbon economy brings challenges for competitiveness but also opportunities for growth.”
~ Obama’s inaugural speech spoke to the need to move in this sector – “Individual companies and countries should position themselves to take advantage of these opportunities.”
“Implementing climate policies may draw attention to money-saving opportunities” – again, this is local/global. Big theme here – marginal costs of abatement vs. the social cost of carbon. “Even if we have sensible policies in place, the social cost of carbon will also rise steadily over time, making more and more technological options for mitigation cost-effective.”
Key Paragraph: “The current evidence suggests aiming for stabilization somewhere within the range of 450-550ppm CO2e. Anything higher would substantially increase the risks of very harmful impacts while reducing the costs of mitigation by comparatively little. Aiming for the lower end of this range would mean the costs of mitigation would be likely to rise rapidly. Anything lower would certainly impose very high adjustment costs in the near term for small gains and might not even be feasible, not least because of past delays in taking strong action.” “Uncertainty is an argument for a more, not less, demanding goal, because of the size of the adverse climate-change impacts in the worst-case scenario.”
~ If we’re willing to pay a little today, we won’t be stuck with an unpayable bill tomorrow. It’s difficult to get people to see this, to see beyond the inconvenience of thinking beyond today. But there it is, if we don’t “sacrifice”, don’t cut back, address things now (and it may already be too late), tomorrow’s costs are out of this world – perhaps literally.
“Policy to reduce emissions should be based on three essential elements: carbon pricing, technology policy, and removal of barriers to behavioral change.”
1) Carbon pricing is first. “people are faced with the full social cost of their actions.”
~ This leads me to think of the real price of things – i.e. a Styrofoam cup. It may cost nothing to us – it comes free from after dinner or getting takeout, or almost nothing to buy and since the makers of it can’t be doing it at a loss, presumably it costs them even less to make it. Yet what then becomes of it. What is the cost in oil needed to produce it, in how it decomposes or doesn’t, the landfill cost, and so on. If we start looking at the real costs of everything we use – it shifts our perspective. And if we start having to pay the real cost for such things – no doubt this would change our buying habits. We’d buy things that lasted, things that could be touched over and over again and not leave behind a toxic residue when finally they had to be put out to pasture.
2) Tech policies – from R&D to demonstration and deployment. Helping low-carbon tech get a leg up, as it costs more in startup than existing tech, with the idea that it will cost less as more of it is available. “The knowledge gained from r&d is a public good; companies may underinvest in projects with a big social payoff if they fear they will be unable to capture the full benefits. Thus there are good economic reasons to promote new tech. directly.”
~ Do people do the right thing for the right reasons? Probably not enough of us do. Therefore by converging economics and ecology – if people are given a new reason to do something, a reason that they can understand in terms of dollars, perhaps they do the right thing regardless. In this way we trade teaching about ecology to teaching about economics – and people listen.
3) The removal of barriers to social change.
All of this speaks to “fostering a shared understanding of the nature of climate change and its consequences.” Changing our understanding is key, and we’ll return to this.
“Adaptation policy is crucial for dealing with the unavoidable impacts of climate change, but it has been under-emphasized in many countries.”
~ Act local: “Unlike mitigation, adaptation will in most cases provide local benefits, realized without long lead times.”
Need “financial safety net” for poorest in society, likely most vulnerable to impact. “Adaptation action should be integrated into development policy and planning at every level.”
Key * “An effective response to climate change will depend on creating the conditions for international collective action.”
~ Act global. “A shared global perspective on the urgency of the problem and on the long-term goals for climate change policy, and an international approach based on multilateral frameworks and co-ordinated action, are essential to respond to the scale of the challenge.”
~ We’ve got to get it together, together. – “international cooperation” on all aspects of reducing emissions. “Cooperation can be encouraged and sustained by greater transparency and comparability of national action.”
~ Stern suggests connecting various existing carbon trading schemes and those in development together can be beneficial. Here it seems is a nod to ecosystems – everything is interdependent.
Continues to press the need for international collaboration, understanding and cooperation. – think Global, act global.
On a practical level – now – “curbing deforestation is a highly cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” Again, tie this into the carbon markets.
Key * “Strong and early mitigation has a key role to play in limiting the long-run costs of adaptation. Without this, the cost of adaptation will rise dramatically.”
~ Think of cleaning a cut and putting on a band-aid, so it doesn’t get infected, prevents huge costs down the road. We can think of this in the organism that is ourselves, need to think about it in terms of the organism that is our planet, and as Stern suggests, organism that is our economy.
Key building block – “shared understanding, cooperation…
“Without a clear perspective on the long-term goals for stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, it is unlikely that action will be sufficient to meet the objective.”
Action must include: mitigation, innovation, and adaptation.
“There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change if strong collective action starts now.” “But it is already very clear that the economic risks of inaction in the face of climate change are very severe.”
“Above all, reducing the risks of climate change requires collective action. … Delay would be costly and dangerous.”
~ Shared understanding and see that “we’re in the same boat brother.” Need to think global and see that rocking one end has an effect on all of us….
As I typed this up, happened upon an interview in this week’s New Scientist with James Lovelock – who proposed the Gaia theory of the earth as an organism. Scarily, Lovelock suggests we may already be too late to avoid catastrophe. (Though he proposes one last ditch solution and bets we won’t do it.) That said, Lovelock seems unconcerned, as from the view of the earth as organism, less people isn’t a bad thing. Read it here if you’re interested: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html
Also, did other reading about the Stern Report. Seems much debated. Conservatives bash it for chicken little “sky is falling” while environments bash it for not going far enough. Seems pretty well balanced in my view – and it clearly identifies the enormity of the issues and the way in which we need to think about the problems. If specifics are wrong, well, we’re always learning more. But as the report emphasizing, if the high end of the risks are realized, we’re in trouble, better to start paying attention and asking the right questions…
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
