An Inconvenient Truth

[Occhidiangela]

Most unemployed Central and South Americans, especially the most marginal, work in industries with very little environmental consequence. (At least outside of Brazil, because of the forest, and Argentina/Chile/Uruguay, due to greater industrialization.)

And, as the collapse of the USSR more or less proved, the economic devastation of insurrection more than compensates for the drop in environmental awareness. Ecologically speaking, a worldwide revolution (sans nukes) would probably be fantastic for our greenhouse gas output. Industry can't pollute if it can't operate, and it can't operate if there's no stable market.

-Jester

Then we (and the UN) need to stop intervening in civil wars, like Darfur, Rwanda, Zaire, Iraq (oops, someone helped start that one, but at least it is good for the environment . . . Al Gore should be so proud) and try to start them in India, Pakistan, China, Mexico, Indonseia, Columbia, Venezuela, Argentina, and Iran.

And heck, maybe in the US? Why should we be left out of the fun! :blink::blink::blink:

Buy shares in Smith and Wesson, Colt, Remington, and Ruger, Jester, you'll make a killing! :lol:

Occhi

[kandrathe]

... And, as the collapse of the USSR more or less proved ...

Hmmm, I'm not sure you could draw any conclusions from observing the USSR prior to or after the collapse. At least after the collapse, the world was free to investigate and understand the ecologic catastrophes like Chernobyl or around MAYAK at Chelyabinsk. Now with criminals running the economy, who knows what's happening with their toxic waste.

Back to Central and South America... I could be a forest ranger in the US, and still over consume resources. Like China or India, just being there and alive consumes resources. Those consumed resources are derived from their environment, and their waste products are dumped back into the environment. Urbanization allows a population to share dwelling space, pavement, wells, transportation systems, etc. But it also leads to concentration of pollution as well.

The economic policy under the military government (1973-
1990) emphasized the development of a free-market economy based
on non interventionist principles and strong export-orientation
(monetarist policy). The government at this time viewed
Environmental protection as detrimental to economic growth.
Also, the population affected by environmental problems was
largely excluded from political decision-making. There was
neither a coherent body of environmental regulations nor a
central environmental authority in Chile. Environmental rules
and regulations were fragmented and without effective
enforcement. There was no national legislation requiring the
assessment of environmental impacts of investment projects, and
new projects were approved and modified monthly. Basic
environmental data was either lacking or collected sector by
sector and not compiled in a manner useful for environmental
management.
ICE (Chile) ICE Home

As with most strong arm dictators, political power derrived from military force preempts any need for environmental accountability. Most complaints in those nations are solved with a midnight visit to the nearest torture facility or just a bullet. When you have stable, peaceful populations... then you will have time for worrying about the missing ozone layer, or why the polar ice caps are melting.

[Assur]

Ecologically speaking, a worldwide revolution (sans nukes) would probably be fantastic for our greenhouse gas output. Industry can't pollute if it can't operate, and it can't operate if there's no stable market.

-Jester

You are talking about a Luddite revolution I assume? Just what makes you think that something like that is possible? Don't you get it, China, India and ASEAN are industrializing at a rate which the west hasn't seen for decades! Climate change is here to stay and all the complaining and whining in the West is totally irrelevant! Adapt or die.

[kandrathe]

Adapt or die.

I guess I'll have to start a mushroom farm.

[eppie]

You are talking about a Luddite revolution I assume? Just what makes you think that something like that is possible? Don't you get it, China, India and ASEAN are industrializing at a rate which the west hasn't seen for decades! Climate change is here to stay and all the complaining and whining in the West is totally irrelevant! Adapt or die.

Untrue, these things are connected. If in the West we would act a bit brave, we would just put huge import taxes on products that are made in a way that is not according to our standards (not only environmentally but also without child labour eg). But of course that is bad for our own wealth......so it is us who decide.

[Occhidiangela]

Untrue, these things are connected. If in the West we would act a bit brave, we would just put huge import taxes on products that are made in a way that is not according to our standards (not only environmentally but also without child labour eg). But of course that is bad for our own wealth......so it is us who decide.

In the US, NAFTA is an excellent example of what you are talking about, in the negative. NAFTA was license for any US based company to steal a march on the environment by opening plants in Mexico that did not meet US standards, and in many cases, don't meet Mexican standards.

Occhi

[Assur]

Untrue, these things are connected. If in the West we would act a bit brave, we would just put huge import taxes on products that are made in a way that is not according to our standards (not only environmentally but also without child labour eg). But of course that is bad for our own wealth......so it is us who decide.

We are talking about India and China: big, tough and nukes, not some squalid third-world country dependent on "development" aid. If we slap import duties they will a. retaliate and b. go to the WTO. Even if they had the same enviromental standards as the west, the sheer numbers just mean that the output of greenhouse gases will rise and rise.

Anyway it is the sovereign decision of a country to put economic growth ahead of the enviroment. The per capita output of greenhouse gases in the west is still at least 10x higher than in India and China so preaching at them just makes us look like hypocrites :whistling:

[SwissMercenary]

b. go to the WTO.

But since when did the superpowers really care about what those trans-national organisations think?

[Occhidiangela]

But since when did the superpowers really care about what those trans-national organisations think?

Since they are members of those same organizations, they have to care somewhat, though not as much as some would like . . . see the US/UN dysfunctional family relationship of late.

Occhi

[SwissMercenary]

Since they are members of those same organizations, they have to care somewhat, though not as much as some would like . . . see the US/UN dysfunctional family relationship of late.

Occhi

Pardon my over-cinycism in that post. International courts and lack of US approval of the matter is what came up for me when I read that.

[Occhidiangela]

Pardon my over-cinycism in that post. International courts and lack of US approval of the matter is what came up for me when I read that.

Apples and lugnuts comparison. International Courts are not the same as international meta orgs like UN and WTO. They are fundamentally different entities, both in charter and purpose. Their outcomes are also different, in the degree of binding judgments, jurisdiction, and accountability. Any US citizen worth his spit will reject any international court. The balance of power is not present in any international court system, and the Constitution's protections are only ensured under our own court system. Any American supporting International Courts as a place for an American to be "tried" is giving up his rights on the hope that someone will show mercy on them.

That is a fool's play, for all that our court system has its imperfections. International courts are fancy Kangaroo Courts of a profoundly political nature.

Occhi

[Lissa]

<mass snipage>

On a side note, I agree with you that nuclear power should be part of the solution. The most shocking thing about Bush for me lately was that he said something I agreed with: that we should implement "recycle-fuel nuclear", something you're no doubt aware of (esp since Lissa was mentioning it I think), but of which I only learned about 6 months ago. I used to be against nuclear power, but I feel that the combination of the lesser-risk fuel with passive safeguards (smaller, pebble reactors) have made it "safe enough". (Note that my level of knowledge about it is only as deep as that of a Scientific American reader.) ... but I also have questions-- where does all the uranium come from?? Will demand for uranium ever become another energy crisis? Will it make some African nation too powerful in world affairs? I am ignorant about this. Thank you. Do I just leave the microphone right here? Okay.

-V
<more snipage>

Reprocessing of spent Reactor fuel leads to many things. First and foremost, it lowers the cost of fuel as removing the unusable materials from the spent fuel is just chemical seperation which is much cheaper than enrichment by standard methods*. Second, most of the spent fuel is still usable either as being placed back in a reactor or used by other industries, mostly medicinal, meaning only about 1% to 2% of the total spent fuel is truly waste that needs to be stored and this waste, the longest lived isotopes have a half life of about 100 years (in about 700 years, 7 half lives, the waste is harmless as it has decayed to non-radioactive, stable materials). Third, it gives Humanity as a whole a way to get rid of nuclear weapons quickly by mixing the Plutonium pits and rods into fuel going into reactors to be used to create energy and not being used to blow people up. The end of reprocessing of spent fuel was Carter's biggest mistake during his Presidency, but he did it to try and stop proliferation of nuclear weapons (admirable, but ultimately has caused more issues than it has solved). It's time to sit down and put reprocessing back on the table for all countries, but to have a neutral body, like IAEA, deal with it to keep proliferation from getting out of hand.

Reactor design has come a long way from TMI and Chernobyl (I still shake my head at Russian designs that led to Chernobyl) and there were operational prototypes during the early to mid 90s that literally took sabotage to make them meltdown (there were so many passive systems built in, the reactor could run itself safely and efficiently without human intervention).

As to where does Uranium come from...out of the ground. There are a number of countries that have a good amount of Uranium resources (several countries in Africa, the US and Canada, most of western Europe and Russia, and probably a number of other sources that have not been discovered or reachable as yet).

As to it ever becoming another energy crisis, not a chance. We can design reactors that are called Breeders. In essense, they make their own fuel from the initial fuel you put in. What you are doing is converting Uranium 238 to Plutonium 239 (the material used in most Nuclear Weapons). You can then reuse the Plutonium 239 to make power and in fissioning it, create yet more Plutonium 239. The other option we have is Fusion if we ever start putting money into it. In this case, it's nigh impossible to run out of fuel there as 700# of water will produce as much energy as 39 Super Tankers full of the best grade of crude oil.

I hope that answered a lot of your questions.

* - At present, the standard methods of enrichment are gaseous diffusion and centrifuge, both are costly and time consuming. I have heard mention from professors and others that the US has perfected Laser enrichment which allows them to enrich to a very high level in one to two passes (as opposed to the thousands of passes required to get to the same level, it still takes several tens of passes to get Uranium enriched enough to be used in a reactor).

[SwissMercenary]

Apples and lugnuts comparison. International Courts are not the same as international meta orgs like UN and WTO. They are fundamentally different entities, both in charter and purpose. Their outcomes are also different, in the degree of binding judgments, jurisdiction, and accountability. Any US citizen worth his spit will reject any international court. The balance of power is not present in any international court system, and the Constitution's protections are only ensured under our own court system. Any American supporting International Courts as a place for an American to be "tried" is giving up his rights on the hope that someone will show mercy on them.

That is a fool's play, for all that our court system has its imperfections. International courts are fancy Kangaroo Courts of a profoundly political nature.

Occhi

Oh, give it some time, and people'll get used to it. :lol: After all, they don't seem to have any problem with hoping that profit-oriented large-scale corporations will not need to exert their political influence in a way that will have a detrimental impact on them...

And I'd daresay that they have a far more direct, and quite arguably, significant impact on our lives.

[Occhidiangela]

Oh, give it some time, and people'll get used to it. :lol: After all, they don't seem to have any problem with hoping that profit-oriented large-scale corporations will not need to exert their political influence in a way that will have a detrimental impact on them...

And I'd daresay that they have a far more direct, and quite arguably, significant impact on our lives.

Impact on our lives comes from myriad sources, and has little to do with the court system and justice. What the standards and expectations are for any justice system is held to a significantly higher standard, as a norm, than nearly any other institution in a society -- any society.

Your red herring of corporations smells of rotten fish. Please go fish for something a bit fresher, or find a more suitable use for your pole. :whistling:

Occhi

[kandrathe]

... we would just put huge import taxes on products that are made in a way that is not according to our standards...

Driving the cost of imported goods higher benefits domestic producers and countries like the US who could be entirely self contained if we wanted to create Fortress America. Bad for Japan and lots of little EU nations who import almost everything. Wealth is relative. So huge import taxes stifling trade would result in everyone in the world suffering and being relatively poorer. So richer nations would be paying higher prices, while poorer nations populations would starve and be driven into civil and regional wars. So, back to where we started.

"What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor. Real wrath of God type stuff! Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness, earthquakes, and volcanos! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifices, dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!"

And I'd daresay that they have a far more direct, and quite arguably, significant impact on our lives.

I don't expect justice, fairness and equality from huge multi-national corporations... Just non-toxic consumable two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.

[Jester]

You are talking about a Luddite revolution I assume? Just what makes you think that something like that is possible? Don't you get it, China, India and ASEAN are industrializing at a rate which the west hasn't seen for decades! Climate change is here to stay and all the complaining and whining in the West is totally irrelevant! Adapt or die.

The West, for now and the near future, makes up the majority of world industrial production. Even assuming phenomenal rates of growth for China and India, Europe plus North America still constitutes a quarter of the world's population at full productivity. It is hardly irrelevant what we do, nor will it be so anytime soon.

My point was, if China, India, et al dropped into bitter, self-destructive insurrectionary wars, they would no longer be industrializing, at least nowhere near as fast. I am neither advocating such revolutions nor speaking to their likelihood, only stating what would happen environmentally speaking.

I think we'll probably die. If not now, then soon enough. Species usually fail to adapt to themselves.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

The West, for now and the near future, makes up the majority of world industrial production.

I think we'll probably die. If not now, then soon enough. Species usually fail to adapt to themselves.

-Jester

We all die, Jester, the question is whether or not we truly live. ;)

As to the rate of change in China and India, I don't expect it to be a low slope linear progression, I expect it to work on a parabolic curve. So will energy demand.

Consider this thought: only the four horsemen -- famine, disease, war, and death -- can save the planet. :lol: This idea argues for a complete review of medical and health care policy, and the cost benefit of keeping people alive for extra decades under a growing continuum of pills, medication and exotic medical procedures. *ducks as the various Lounge geriatrics throw immense rocks at a graying rogue*

Maybe Logan's Run was more prescient than we once imagined. :ph34r: Oh, wait, that means I had better start running now! :blink:

Until the bulk of developing nations accept near ZPG or birth control as a worthwhile societal norm, the Malthusian pressures will continue, and they will spread across borders, just as they do across Europe's Southern Region, across the American/Mexican border, and across the Chinese / Russian border. Its manifestation in strife, disease, famine, or other calamity is an effect of the cause of locally unsustainable population growth. Put another way, the current war in Zaire/Congo is good for sub-Saharan Africa's ecosystem in the long run.

If you want to talk about species, Darwin, and survival, consider those species and cultures who are trying, either intentionally or unintentionally, to win The Battle of the Cradle. That cultural mind set is the biosphere's real threat through the next few generations.

I hope you see the irony in the "Cultural West" being at near Zero Population Growth, and a high per capita energy consumption, with the breeding cultural sets trying to catch up and bringing energy needs with them. The conditions either require the over breeding cultures to adopt "Cultural Western" norms of low to no population growth, or a massive change in how all populations use energy. The one thing "we" can do is be greener and more efficient, and less wasteful. Each choice comes with a cost. The over breeding sets tend to have less margin for adjustment. That said, energy demand growth is not easily moderated.

While excoriated as a tyrranical policy, the Chinese "one child" policy successfully, for about a generation, suppressed a geometric population growth. Had that policy not been well enforced, the impact on the globe, and on the region, would be worse than it has become. The parallel to that in "The West" was a practical, secular ideal of small families that was packaged and sold to, and internalized, by a significant portion of the population. It seems ironic to me that the smart, modern low-rate breeders are slowly non-breeding themselves into a marginal sliver of the population, while the more "old school" sub cultures in a great many countries tend to be more fecund. To quote a Fundy acquaintance of mine: "We breed, those city slicker elitists don't."

Food for thought.

Is it any wonder that the urban secularist is also an elitist, and likely a plutocrat? In a free society as described above, he soon becomes a sophisticated minority. In a more centralized and non pluralist, even heavily socialist society, he stands to be more politically viable . . . for a time.

You want to save the planet, Jester? Teach everyone to "Wrap That Rascal." The side benefit is a likely reduction in the AIDS transmission rate. :)

Buy shares in condom manufacturers, Jester, you'll make a killing. :lol:

Occhi

[Zippyy]

For those who are skeptical of Gore's political intentions, here is another tidbit.

In July's Wired, Lawrence Lessig writes: "... many will ask whether this campaign has an obvious sequel [another run for president - Zip.]. I asked Gore that question after seeing him present the slide show -- easily the most powerful and passionate speech I have ever seen by anyone about anything. Gore laughed at the query as if it were a mark of (my) insanity. 'Absolutely not,' he insisted. 'Never again.'"

A little over-the-top with the praise, but also a concise denial by Gore of any intentions to run again. Much clearer than his "I don't have any plans to" from his interview on the Daily Show.

So, that's my tidbit. Chew it and see how it tastes.

[Drasca]

While excoriated as a tyrranical policy, the Chinese "one child" policy successfully, for about a generation, suppressed a geometric population growth.

For those not aware, I would like to stress that in my visits to china in the Late 90's, policy's been extremely relaxed, mostly about financial incentives, and some family in Urban mainland China have had 2 children born in the late 80's and through the 90's.

For instance, the state newly allowed single-child husbands and single-child wives to have two children between each other. (Chinese Reproductive Policy at the Turn of the Millennium, pg 382) This process of fine-tuning persists even today: according to a report issued this month, re-marrying couples in Shanghai are allowed to have one child between each other even if they've each had one child from their previous marriages. (www.cpirc.org.cn/enews20031010.htm) The new birth planning law is flexible enough to even accommodate individuals who have gone through divorce or separation.

A revised and liberalized birth planning policy: China is making brave steps to achieve sustainable growth, even though whether it can achieve that goal fully can only be told in time

These are from the about.com article


Occhi makes the observation that, "smart, modern low-rate breeders are slowly non-breeding themselves into a marginal sliver of the population", one that's commonly held. I've had some time to premeditate on that thought (years, I can a bit slow).

To quote a Fundy acquaintance of mine: "We breed, those city slicker elitists don't."

City slickers were country born, but city bred. You may breed'em, but we'll teach'em to want more, reach farther.

Let's not forget that Urbanization started out and continues to have migrated from rural areas.

My longer observation has concepts influenced by Sun Tzu. There's only one victory, success. If merit breeds success, it matters greatly that we have people of great merit--but, professionally merit is not bound by blood or culture (though obviously some individual practices are boons and hinderances). Merit and success are defined in and of themselves, not to any one plutocracy. Knowledge, when useful, can be applied to the benefit of everyone. So too can man be trained, when given the initiave and opportunity, and reach beyond his starting point. As a personal anecdote: I'm no saint, but I can honestly say I've taken small parts in helping many young folk grasp beyond their initial perceived limits. Birth isn't the only way to build a better human. Nor would socioeconomic construct be absolute in determining success and failure (cultural backround and identity, starting poor, starting with a crazy family out to kill you, or being surrounded by those that keep you down, lacking initial communication... etc, though it certainly helps to be priviledged away from some of these things). I've seen success of dysfunctional families on television as a reflection to a success from dysfunctional family members in real life. It is sometimes possible to outgrow* your start, thus it doesn't matter where you're born, you can make a difference for the positive.

Yeah, the elitists as individuals do die eventually, but knowledge, ideas and success can carry on through children not by birth.

I'm young. I have some hope for the future. Fortunately, it isn't completely blind or unfounded.

Edited additions: *I attribute this partly to human's ability to reach rapid "Mental Clarity when facing execution" and breach stagnant ideas. Facing annihilation tends to allow for reassessment of beliefs, actions and value. Poor reasoning, and negative irrational behaviour can die with the people that uphold them.

[Occhidiangela]

Edited additions: *I attribute this partly to human's ability to reach rapid "Mental Clarity when facing execution" and breach stagnant ideas. Facing annihilation tends to allow for reassessment of beliefs, actions and value. Poor reasoning, and negative irrational behaviour can die with the people that uphold them.

My observation is that stupidity has not been bred out of the human race.

Nice post, in any case. :)

Occhi