tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post5257376767852673877..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: Reply to RevkinMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-25496108766488955262007-11-16T06:21:00.000-08:002007-11-16T06:21:00.000-08:00It's more than a little interesting to learn that ...It's more than a little interesting to learn that I have a reputation. I do hope it's a good one.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-84949301304969486612007-11-16T00:22:00.000-08:002007-11-16T00:22:00.000-08:00coming from someone with your reputation, michael,...coming from someone with your reputation, michael,this means a lot more.<BR/><BR/>very well put indeed.Marion Delgadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493068399042656060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-61985993415340430482007-11-15T11:40:00.000-08:002007-11-15T11:40:00.000-08:00By the way, just as an aside, another book that Re...By the way, just as an aside, another book that Revkin mentioned, actually titled <A HREF="http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/468532.html" REL="nofollow">"The Middle Path"</A>... That excerpt is a decent, short read. The discussion about how we might just have easily used bromofluorocarbons for refrigerants, rather than chlorofluorocarbons... How that would likely have caused catastrophic harm to the ozone layer while we were scientifically oblivious to the fact... How we just blindly "lucked out" in selecting CFC's... quite chilling... I had not heard that story before... Chilling... um, unintentionally bad pun there...<BR/><BR/>And, a little lighter, regarding the public debate climate change debate, here is a cute <A HREF="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/globalwarming_illus_600.jpg" REL="nofollow">editorial cartoon</A> <BR/>h/t Inel!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-2225336335967891062007-11-15T11:16:00.000-08:002007-11-15T11:16:00.000-08:00I had noticed and enjoyed your post at Dot Earth, ...I had noticed and enjoyed your post at Dot Earth, particularly the final paragraph (3rd to last here). I'm glad you expanded it here.<BR/><BR/>The "how to frame the issue to maximize the probablility of successful action" is a convoluted dilemma. I can sympathize with Revkin's concerns.<BR/><BR/>But as you indicate, nature is totally value-free w.r.t. our politics and culture. If you try to craft the message so that you are, in effect, trying to mold physical realities to build public consensus, you run some enormous risks with that same public. Not to mention, operating somewhat delusionally.<BR/><BR/>To begin with, almost every signal we are receiving back from the environment is confirming scenarios towards the "worst case" end of the spectrum - e.g. Arctic sea ice loss, global carbon emissions, loss of carbon sink capacity, etc. If you engage the public to act based on a "dumbed-down", soothing, "politics of possibility" version of this reality, you risk losing all credibility if you later have to keep going back to repair your message on an ongoing basis.<BR/><BR/>Second, we know, based on latency and continued carbon-loading, that even when/if we get on with the task of reducing carbon emissions, we will be facing news like this c. 2025: "We have now successfully reduced global carbon emissions 27% since 2012. Meanwhile, 2024 has recently been confirmed as the hottest year on record, and the arctic ice cap set another summer low." In that kind of negative-feedback world (I am talking about human psychology), it will be very challenging to keep the momentum for change underway, unless you have been upfront about the challenges from the outset... E.g. that kind of latency/delayed benefit payback will have had to have been communicated beforehand. And this will be the reality even if you completely buy into the M&S "technology uber alles" mantra.<BR/><BR/>So, despite Revkin's concern about "gloomy" messages falling on deaf ears, I think that embarking on a course of action predicated on some sort of "don't worry, be happy" spin version of the issue is in fact MORE likely to fail. First, it will be hard to mobilize people if they are not persuaded that it is a serious issue, and second, they will lose their conviction fairly quickly if the message keeps being "switched" on them over time...<BR/><BR/>If ever there was an issue when we need plain talk, this has to be it.<BR/><BR/>Yes, in a political environment where large parts of the population believes in alien abductions, or that Fred and Wilma really did have a dinosaur for a pet, it is a lot to expect/hope for. But I believe that people are owed a clear articulation of the challenge, and will undertake the commensurate changes required once they understand the rationale. Spinning the message, or pointing to some kind of vague "Moore's Law for Energy Technology" as our salvation, even if near-term successful in kick-starting change, are more likely to eventually backfire and increase cynicism/resistance.<BR/><BR/>In some ways, Revkin's key insight is "People don't like bad news. They prefer good news. Ergo, give them good news.". All true, but missing the point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-2950744260999744672007-11-15T08:08:00.000-08:002007-11-15T08:08:00.000-08:00John, David's statement is almost entirely polemic...John, David's statement is almost entirely polemic; the weasel words "responsible" and "potentially" pretty much leave it saying in substance far less than it portends. That conceded, I also think there's such a thing as responsible polemics. <BR/><BR/>There are various aspects of how economists think about costs and benefits that seem to me ill adapted for long term thinking. <BR/><BR/>I appreciate the challenge and I'll think about it. Probably it's best not addressed in haste. Two things come to my mind immediately. <BR/><BR/>1) Why is a climate physicist (if you generously concede me that much) esepcially qualified to weigh impacts? <BR/><BR/>2) Why aren't the explanations already out there satisfactory?<BR/><BR/>For now, here's my short answer:<BR/><BR/>"The harder you bash something the more damage you will do to it."Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-78706402938852792112007-11-15T07:48:00.000-08:002007-11-15T07:48:00.000-08:00Michael, That's a great piece of writing for comme...Michael, <BR/><BR/>That's a great piece of writing for comments on a blog. I'm glad you decided to share it with your readers.<BR/><BR/>I do think Revkin's middle path argument does have some merit, but the biggest problem with his recent blog articles about his arguments is that the authors he is pointing to Bjorn, Newt, Shellenburger, and Nordhaus is that they're almost as focused on promoting themselves than addressing the problem. There have been other authors who've released books outside the past 3 months who are worth reviewing and think tanks like RFF, WRI, and Brookings continue to attempt to hammer out papers that try to show us how to get where we need to be while attempting to minimize societal costs.<BR/><BR/>If you do listen to bill mckibben (as an example) right now, who is becoming a momentous figure in the youth movement as seen at powershift, he intends to promote an agenda that extends beyond tackling climate change. It's not necessarily wrong, but it's not definitively the truth either. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, claiming that the scientific consensus is 80-90% by 2050 with a 100% auction (a climate change rally cry) isn't exactly the truth either. Especially, concerning the 100% auction, I think that is an proposed economic policy rather than peer-reviewed science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-21508323500334084762007-11-14T20:23:00.000-08:002007-11-14T20:23:00.000-08:00It would be useful if you, as one of the scientist...It would be useful if you, as one of the scientists in the room, would be specific about what you see as "the cliff" we're all marching toward. One of the interesting strengths of Lomborg's book is that he gets quite specific in discussing the various hypothesized cliffs, and the costs and benefits of various approaches to not going off of them. David Roberts, in his criticism of Revkin's pieces, describes climate change as a problem that "every responsible scientist acknowledges is potentially catastrophic". It's an assertion that's sufficiently vague ("potentially") to leave a lot of wiggle room, but it doesn't match the views of an awful lot of scientists I know.John Fleckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01945772782727225745noreply@blogger.com