Hillman, senior fellow emeritus at the Policy Studies Institute, says carbon rationing is the only way to ensure that the world avoids the worst effects of climate change. And he says that the problems caused by burning fossil fuels are so serious that governments might have to implement rationing against the will of the people.So much for lefty faith in popular sovereignty.
"When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it," he says. "This has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not."
(via the Corner via Small Dead Animals)
2 comments:
Carl!
Truly a wonderful quote and comment that provide a fine example of the benefits of hermenuetic analysis ala Gadamer and Wittgenstein! As you mention in your linked May 22, 2005 post, many of us get so wrapped up in labels and classifications as a means to cut off discussion or evaluation of serious issues that must be addressed before we indeed are the frog in the water about to reach the boiling point!
-Cogito
Cogito:
Whatever. Though there's this from Andrew Lilico:
"Mainstream climate models and economic analysis associated with them suggest that the costs of climate change might, in a century’s time, be perhaps five percent of GDP. To place this in context, people at that point are expected to be five times as wealthy as today if it were not for these costs of climate change, so the effect is that they are only 4.75 times as rich as us. Since they are expected to be much richer than me, one might not think it too problematic if they pay for the costs of adjusting to climate change, rather than me — they aren’t planning to pay me for my research and development and capital accumulation, all of which will be important drivers of their wealth.
If we think about the claim that current climate change is the result of human-induced CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution, we can see the idea. The deal is this: Tuvalu sinks beneath the waves, there is even more flooding than usual in Bangladesh, and in exchange we get pharmaceutical medicine, TV, Reeboks, McDonald’s, air travel, computers, blogs, and all the other apparatus of modern life. That’s a no-brainer. And in a century’s time, perhaps our great grandchildren will be sitting in their climate-controlled domes on Mars thinking 'The deal was this: London flooded, the Mississippi overflowed even more than usual, and in exchange we got the cure for cancer, interplanetary travel, a life expectancy of 200, eyelid head-up-displays, telepathy, and all the other apparatus of modern life. That was a no-brainer.'
So in principle there is little to apologize for if we decide not to bear additional costs today so that our great grandchildren will be 'only' 4.75 times as rich as us."
Post a Comment