tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post3088427217107620162..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: Sachs lecture and quibbling at the fringesMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-58358717230444019282007-04-23T22:39:00.000-07:002007-04-23T22:39:00.000-07:00I wish I could find the source for this put its be...I wish I could find the source for this put its been shown that harmful emissions (like soot) generally go down as a country's GDP rises: except CO2.<BR/><BR/>Sound like Sachs is pointing out the double whammy we're facing: A huge future demand in energy which we only know how to meet with fossil fuels and a need to reduce CO2 emissions from our current fossil-fuel based energy production.<BR/><BR/>One problem at a time....Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10375007307125560799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-168369133942471442007-04-23T21:20:00.000-07:002007-04-23T21:20:00.000-07:00James:You seem to directly equate economic growth ...James:<BR/><BR/><EM>You seem to directly equate economic growth with environmental destruction and consumption.</EM><BR/><BR/>Actually, I don't. In fact, I don't really understand what "growth" means at all. Given that there seems to be some sort of theorem that it can take place forever, it must be a very strange sort of quantity not subject to the sorts of constraints that us mere physicists plod along with.<BR/><BR/>That said, Sachs is talking about most of the world moving from a preindustrial to a postindustrial state. If that isn't resource intensive, I don't know what is.<BR/><BR/>It probably won't happen, I think, but that isn't exactly good news either.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-42716585725187450072007-04-23T18:09:00.000-07:002007-04-23T18:09:00.000-07:00If David Duff is suffering from doom fatigue, he s...If David Duff is suffering from doom fatigue, he should stop reading wingnut trope that uses marginalization rhetoric and gross mischaracterization to claim everything people say is doom and gloom.<BR/><BR/>Simple, yet complex. <BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-30394744758192788932007-04-23T14:22:00.000-07:002007-04-23T14:22:00.000-07:00David Duff, you have missed the point of the fable...David Duff, you have missed the point of the fable, as so many people do. You see, eventually it transpired that there actually was a wolf.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-25711378680718104432007-04-23T12:10:00.000-07:002007-04-23T12:10:00.000-07:00I don't know about "the core point" but I have tri...I don't know about "the core point" but I have tried to take seriously all you chaps walking up and down with "The End of the World is Nigh" placards but, alas, I'm suffering with 'doom fatigue'! You see, I've heard it all before, and then before that, and even before that. I have no desire to pinch any of your readers but I provide an example over at:<BR/><BR/>http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/2007/04/dr_whos_time_ma.html<BR/><BR/>It, and other similar flights of fancy disguised as the 'scientific' consensus, do not fill me with confidence. Way to go, guys!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-39462373711409892202007-04-22T23:34:00.000-07:002007-04-22T23:34:00.000-07:00You seem to directly equate economic growth with e...You seem to directly equate economic growth with environmental destruction and consumption. I don't think that is necessarily a given, although of course focussing greater efforts on efficiency and environmentally-conscious behaviour would be an all-round good thing...James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-57711331201998817522007-04-22T18:09:00.000-07:002007-04-22T18:09:00.000-07:00For example, see Brad DeLong on Larry Summers Thi...For example, see Brad DeLong on <A HREF="http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/04/larry_summers_t.html" REL="nofollow"> Larry Summers Thinks About Global Warming and the Industrial Revolution in Asia</A>EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-53983022647969028502007-04-22T16:54:00.000-07:002007-04-22T16:54:00.000-07:00Hi Michael,I agree with you that Sachs' point is b...Hi Michael,<BR/><BR/>I agree with you that Sachs' point is being missed. However, I see your quote as being a contributing point, with Sach's fundamental question about something having to give being answered by a new attitude of collaboration and trust in working toward a common goal instead of competition and distrust that favours one group at the expense of others.<BR/><BR/>You can read my thoughts <A HREF="http://inel.wordpress.com/2007/04/22/heart-of-the-matter-for-survival-in-the-anthropocene/" REL="nofollow">here</A> with a pingback to Stoat which has not appeared yet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-23867603382321282542007-04-21T22:39:00.000-07:002007-04-21T22:39:00.000-07:00i don't understand. the trouble with this isn't wh...i don't understand. the trouble with this isn't what people want china or india to do; it's how much the G8 are willing to pay to clean up their/our mess.<BR/><BR/>a fair and thoughtful process for mitigation would be something like:<BR/><BR/>* steep cuts in the industrial countries that can afford it, financed by the wealth that's flown to the tippety-top of the ladder;<BR/>* aid, adaptation assistance, and debt relief to developing countries, to meet their economic goals;<BR/>* slower curve on reducing carbon for (low per-capita emissions) developing countries, allowing them to concentrate on development, while the richer countries build the needed tech for a low-carbon future<BR/><BR/>if it's all based strongly on per-capita, with the "pie" that someone (i forget) suggested, there's no problem meeting the two goals of adaptive mitigation and sustainable development. what lies in the way, it seems to me, is the unwillingness of a <I>minority</I> of wealthy folks to put their fossil-gotten booty to work, in order to build a more sensible economic system that faces facts: this is a closed system, there <I>are</I> no externalities.hapahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11500413730344726660noreply@blogger.com