The president and his aides often described climate change as a "serious issue," but rarely as a serious problem.
June 3, 2002 7:37 AM Subscribe
The president and his aides often described climate change as a "serious issue," but rarely as a serious problem. - new york times
this statement reminds me of: "depends on what the meaning of is, is?"
at least, admitting you have a problem is usually the first step.
username: metafi19
password: metafi
So, kablam, you're saying global warming will destroy our neighbor's house but not ours? Wonderful news! (Assuming we live in the same house.) But I'd like something more specific before I believe it.
posted by anewc2 at 8:10 AM on June 3, 2002
posted by anewc2 at 8:10 AM on June 3, 2002
There really is no problem. Go to Home Depot and get an air conditioner.
posted by Postroad at 8:16 AM on June 3, 2002
posted by Postroad at 8:16 AM on June 3, 2002
On a more serious note: you might take the opportunity to visit Amsterdam and New Orleans, and take a *lot* of pictures. They might be worth something someday.
posted by kablam at 8:21 AM on June 3, 2002
posted by kablam at 8:21 AM on June 3, 2002
you can afford to repair your house
Now that I've found out that the U.S. has the technology to change the planet's climate, I feel plenty better.
You can neither see nor fight the demon
That's misleading, as the whole point of the article is that the U.S. government is acknowledging its existence, yet not doing anything about it. Sort of like the attitude towards Al-Quaeda prior to 9-11.
posted by magullo at 8:25 AM on June 3, 2002
Now that I've found out that the U.S. has the technology to change the planet's climate, I feel plenty better.
You can neither see nor fight the demon
That's misleading, as the whole point of the article is that the U.S. government is acknowledging its existence, yet not doing anything about it. Sort of like the attitude towards Al-Quaeda prior to 9-11.
posted by magullo at 8:25 AM on June 3, 2002
I think that the Bush Adminsitration, and the scientific community as well, as still sorting out whether global climate change will actually be a problem. So many variables, so little actual measured effect, so much hyperbole...
posted by UncleFes at 8:32 AM on June 3, 2002
posted by UncleFes at 8:32 AM on June 3, 2002
but even then that will only make the demon go away hundreds of years from now, not right away
Environmental ethics arguments usually fall into the "future-generations" pitfall of taking for granted the rights of people who don't exist (those not yet conceived). If one wishes to argue from this perspective, it is necessary to first establish what rights (if any) a person who does not exist has in the present. Only then is it fair to argue on their behalf based on these rights. This is an often overlooked technicality which renders all ethics arguments based on the "future generations" premise invalid.
posted by plaino at 8:39 AM on June 3, 2002
Environmental ethics arguments usually fall into the "future-generations" pitfall of taking for granted the rights of people who don't exist (those not yet conceived). If one wishes to argue from this perspective, it is necessary to first establish what rights (if any) a person who does not exist has in the present. Only then is it fair to argue on their behalf based on these rights. This is an often overlooked technicality which renders all ethics arguments based on the "future generations" premise invalid.
posted by plaino at 8:39 AM on June 3, 2002
plaino:
If one wishes to argue from this perspective, it is necessary to first establish what rights (if any) a person who does not exist has in the present.
i don't know. perhaps i am merely being stoopid, but i'd always thought that a good rule of thumb is that those in future generations would inherit the same rights as we do now. the reason people refer to future generations i think is that, while i might say i have a right to clean air, it's quite possible whatever work we do now won't result in clean air until generations into the future. (not that i am mr. knowitall environmentalist, so maybe we can have clean air now.) it doesn't seem to me to suppose that the only valid, temporal frame of reference is the present.
posted by moz at 9:40 AM on June 3, 2002
If one wishes to argue from this perspective, it is necessary to first establish what rights (if any) a person who does not exist has in the present.
i don't know. perhaps i am merely being stoopid, but i'd always thought that a good rule of thumb is that those in future generations would inherit the same rights as we do now. the reason people refer to future generations i think is that, while i might say i have a right to clean air, it's quite possible whatever work we do now won't result in clean air until generations into the future. (not that i am mr. knowitall environmentalist, so maybe we can have clean air now.) it doesn't seem to me to suppose that the only valid, temporal frame of reference is the present.
posted by moz at 9:40 AM on June 3, 2002
Here's a direct link to the NY Times article that should work okay:
'Climate Changing, US Says in Report'
And a link to the report itself, on the EPA website:
'Climate Action Report 2002'
posted by Owen Boswarva at 9:54 AM on June 3, 2002
'Climate Changing, US Says in Report'
And a link to the report itself, on the EPA website:
'Climate Action Report 2002'
posted by Owen Boswarva at 9:54 AM on June 3, 2002
the fact is ... we are messing with the global climate in serious way - and as the article presents - the present bush administration (the gang of oil men formerly known as friends of enron) are finally admitting that the overwhelming evidence of global warming IS valid.
"Do not live with a vocation that is harmful to humans and nature.." - Thich Nhat Hanh
his precepts were worth a re-read for my energy consuming self.. and certainly i think for some of the me-fi crowd
posted by specialk420 at 10:30 AM on June 3, 2002
"Do not live with a vocation that is harmful to humans and nature.." - Thich Nhat Hanh
his precepts were worth a re-read for my energy consuming self.. and certainly i think for some of the me-fi crowd
posted by specialk420 at 10:30 AM on June 3, 2002
Does this mean I need to sell my SUV, buy a small hybrid car and abandon the war on terra? What about my low self esteem that my SUV provides succor and not to mention the extra 2 inches it adds to my penis? I gotta give that up too? It just doesn't sound patriotic to give up the war on terra, especially now that the Afghan pipeline deal has been inked. Buncha pinkos trying to ruin my day with this Al Gore tree hugging BS!! I'm going to watch Fox news and listen to Rush! Naa naa naa!! I can't hear you!! :)
posted by nofundy at 11:28 AM on June 3, 2002
posted by nofundy at 11:28 AM on June 3, 2002
i'd always thought that a good rule of thumb is that those in future generations would inherit the same rights as we do now
Yes. When they are born.
But, today, those people don't exist so there is an ethical dilemma: For a decision being made today (like whether to buy an SUV or a hybrid), how do the interests of a group of people who don't even exist compare to the interests of real people alive today? Are they the same or different? How that question is answered (or ignored) by a particular group or administration has a profound effect on environmental policy.
posted by plaino at 12:20 PM on June 3, 2002
Yes. When they are born.
But, today, those people don't exist so there is an ethical dilemma: For a decision being made today (like whether to buy an SUV or a hybrid), how do the interests of a group of people who don't even exist compare to the interests of real people alive today? Are they the same or different? How that question is answered (or ignored) by a particular group or administration has a profound effect on environmental policy.
posted by plaino at 12:20 PM on June 3, 2002
I sincerely hope that the next time the Bush administration takes its collective head out of its collective ass long enough to get a breath of fresh air, that there's some fresh air left for it to breathe.
posted by groundhog at 12:34 PM on June 3, 2002
posted by groundhog at 12:34 PM on June 3, 2002
plaino:
But, today, those people don't exist so there is an ethical dilemma: For a decision being made today (like whether to buy an SUV or a hybrid), how do the interests of a group of people who don't even exist compare to the interests of real people alive today? Are they the same or different?
i would assume the rights are the same. sure, circumstances may be different in the future, but positive action is better than no action to me. on the off-chance that even positive action could be discovered to be counteractive now or in the future, i could at least take solace in my good intentions. sort of a crap scenario, that, but this is sort of a crap world.
How that question is answered (or ignored) by a particular group or administration has a profound effect on environmental policy.
that's the best point of all, i think. bush's administration has made it abundantly clear that he prefers to focus on the short-term.
posted by moz at 12:36 PM on June 3, 2002
But, today, those people don't exist so there is an ethical dilemma: For a decision being made today (like whether to buy an SUV or a hybrid), how do the interests of a group of people who don't even exist compare to the interests of real people alive today? Are they the same or different?
i would assume the rights are the same. sure, circumstances may be different in the future, but positive action is better than no action to me. on the off-chance that even positive action could be discovered to be counteractive now or in the future, i could at least take solace in my good intentions. sort of a crap scenario, that, but this is sort of a crap world.
How that question is answered (or ignored) by a particular group or administration has a profound effect on environmental policy.
that's the best point of all, i think. bush's administration has made it abundantly clear that he prefers to focus on the short-term.
posted by moz at 12:36 PM on June 3, 2002
how do the interests of a group of people who don't even exist compare to the interests of real people alive today? Are they the same or different?
i would assume the rights are the same.
If true, this might have some far-reaching implications in a variety of other debates, not the least of which would be the (ahem) abortion issue.
posted by UncleFes at 12:42 PM on June 3, 2002
i would assume the rights are the same.
If true, this might have some far-reaching implications in a variety of other debates, not the least of which would be the (ahem) abortion issue.
posted by UncleFes at 12:42 PM on June 3, 2002
If you don't want your children to be born into a sucky world, it is far easier to not have children than to change the world.
posted by kindall at 1:27 PM on June 3, 2002
posted by kindall at 1:27 PM on June 3, 2002
Kindall: I'm not having children. But there's no reason I should punish the kids of some girl who was denied an abortion by her parents. Better to change the world than intentionally screw it up further through nihlism.
posted by Ptrin at 2:01 PM on June 3, 2002
posted by Ptrin at 2:01 PM on June 3, 2002
Plaino, maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not getting your argument. Are you arguing that benefits or disadvantages for future generations should never be taken into account when deciding on a policy?
By that logic, if we were to invent a machine which would provide happiness and prosperity for all humans alive today but which would completely obliterate the planet in 150 years, it'd be perfectly okay to use it.
That's a reductio ad absurdum, of course - but if you agree that such a hypothetical machine shouldn't be used, then logically policies with less tangible benefits or less certain future outcomes could be similarly debated in terms of their effects on future generations.
So I'm not sure what you mean by the "future generations fallacy" or why you're making the claim that any such argument is logically invalid. Please elaborate.
posted by Chanther at 2:19 PM on June 3, 2002
By that logic, if we were to invent a machine which would provide happiness and prosperity for all humans alive today but which would completely obliterate the planet in 150 years, it'd be perfectly okay to use it.
That's a reductio ad absurdum, of course - but if you agree that such a hypothetical machine shouldn't be used, then logically policies with less tangible benefits or less certain future outcomes could be similarly debated in terms of their effects on future generations.
So I'm not sure what you mean by the "future generations fallacy" or why you're making the claim that any such argument is logically invalid. Please elaborate.
posted by Chanther at 2:19 PM on June 3, 2002
i would assume the rights are the same.
I don't think you mean this because you use a computer and probably other resources which won't be available for someone 100 generations from now. You have already decided to give more weight to your personal, short term interests, than those of future generations.
In other words, It just isn't that simple. The interests of people 3 generations away seem much more real than 30 or 300 generations away. How do we pro-rate the value of these interests WRT environment fairly, but without devastating economic and social consequences today?
posted by plaino at 2:19 PM on June 3, 2002
I don't think you mean this because you use a computer and probably other resources which won't be available for someone 100 generations from now. You have already decided to give more weight to your personal, short term interests, than those of future generations.
In other words, It just isn't that simple. The interests of people 3 generations away seem much more real than 30 or 300 generations away. How do we pro-rate the value of these interests WRT environment fairly, but without devastating economic and social consequences today?
posted by plaino at 2:19 PM on June 3, 2002
So I'm not sure what you mean by the "future generations fallacy" or why you're making the claim that any such argument is logically invalid. Please elaborate.
It is not a fallacy, when arguing an environmental position, to first establish the rights, today, of people who might exist in the future, then arguing the "future generations" position based on a coherent analysis of those rights. For the argument to be sound, those rights must be internally self-consistent as well as consistent with existing human rights.
It is a fallacy to bypass the above (very difficult) foundation and simply blurt out "We must save the rainforest for future generations!" or some variation of that.
Constructing a sound argument based on the right of future generations to enjoy/utilize the environment we share is extremely difficult (I know because it was part of a project I had to do in a college course on environmental ethics). However, that basis is frequently used because it is an intuitively satisfying idea and "feels right", not to mention comes across well in a sound-bite. But, ultimately, such arguments nearly always collapse under scrutiny.
posted by plaino at 2:29 PM on June 3, 2002
It is not a fallacy, when arguing an environmental position, to first establish the rights, today, of people who might exist in the future, then arguing the "future generations" position based on a coherent analysis of those rights. For the argument to be sound, those rights must be internally self-consistent as well as consistent with existing human rights.
It is a fallacy to bypass the above (very difficult) foundation and simply blurt out "We must save the rainforest for future generations!" or some variation of that.
Constructing a sound argument based on the right of future generations to enjoy/utilize the environment we share is extremely difficult (I know because it was part of a project I had to do in a college course on environmental ethics). However, that basis is frequently used because it is an intuitively satisfying idea and "feels right", not to mention comes across well in a sound-bite. But, ultimately, such arguments nearly always collapse under scrutiny.
posted by plaino at 2:29 PM on June 3, 2002
"The report emphasizes that global warming carries potential benefits for the nation, including increased agricultural and forest growth from longer growing seasons, and from more rainfall and carbon dioxide for photosynthesis (NYT)." I'm speechless
posted by spork at 2:34 PM on June 3, 2002
posted by spork at 2:34 PM on June 3, 2002
Um, plaino, surely you can get around all these problems about the rights of future generations by not thinking about it in terms of rights. Just consider that you know that there will be such and such a number of people at a future date, though you don't know who they are. The effect that your actions have on a future generation who you don't know seems pretty similar in ethical significance to the effect you have on some present day group of people far away who you also don't know. It seems just as wrong to adversely affect the former as the latter, and we can see this without mentioning rights.
If that's not convincing, how about this? Presumably you think that you have some reason to save for your retirement, for example. The reason would be that when you're old you'll need a pension. But you don't need a pension now so how can you have an interest now in saving for the future? The obvious answer is that your future interest grounds a present reason for action and there's nothing mysterious about this. The only difference between this case and the case of future generations is that pensions are prudential but saving the environment is ethical. But there's nothing difficult in making the argument, it's just that it may be hard to say exactly what the interests of future generations are and how stringently we're required to protect those interests (but that's always the way in ethics...).
posted by Gaz at 3:40 PM on June 3, 2002
If that's not convincing, how about this? Presumably you think that you have some reason to save for your retirement, for example. The reason would be that when you're old you'll need a pension. But you don't need a pension now so how can you have an interest now in saving for the future? The obvious answer is that your future interest grounds a present reason for action and there's nothing mysterious about this. The only difference between this case and the case of future generations is that pensions are prudential but saving the environment is ethical. But there's nothing difficult in making the argument, it's just that it may be hard to say exactly what the interests of future generations are and how stringently we're required to protect those interests (but that's always the way in ethics...).
posted by Gaz at 3:40 PM on June 3, 2002
plaino:
I don't think you mean this because you use a computer and probably other resources which won't be available for someone 100 generations from now. You have already decided to give more weight to your personal, short term interests, than those of future generations.
actually, this is false. it is quite possible to recycle computers for future use, both directly through donation to educational institutions and indirectly by stripping the raw components that comprise computers for other purposes. (note that not all of a computer is recylable, meaning that some of the resources are wasted. do note that nowhere did i claim humans should not consume any non-renewable resources, for it seems inevitable that we do. this inevitability, however, is no argument against conservation.)
In other words, It just isn't that simple. The interests of people 3 generations away seem much more real than 30 or 300 generations away. How do we pro-rate the value of these interests WRT environment fairly, but without devastating economic and social consequences today?
a good question. it would seem the most practical solution would be to focus on nearer generations as well as possible, but not to exclusion (which bush seems to tend towards moreso than not). but then, i wasn't a major in environmental sciences.
posted by moz at 3:44 PM on June 3, 2002
I don't think you mean this because you use a computer and probably other resources which won't be available for someone 100 generations from now. You have already decided to give more weight to your personal, short term interests, than those of future generations.
actually, this is false. it is quite possible to recycle computers for future use, both directly through donation to educational institutions and indirectly by stripping the raw components that comprise computers for other purposes. (note that not all of a computer is recylable, meaning that some of the resources are wasted. do note that nowhere did i claim humans should not consume any non-renewable resources, for it seems inevitable that we do. this inevitability, however, is no argument against conservation.)
In other words, It just isn't that simple. The interests of people 3 generations away seem much more real than 30 or 300 generations away. How do we pro-rate the value of these interests WRT environment fairly, but without devastating economic and social consequences today?
a good question. it would seem the most practical solution would be to focus on nearer generations as well as possible, but not to exclusion (which bush seems to tend towards moreso than not). but then, i wasn't a major in environmental sciences.
posted by moz at 3:44 PM on June 3, 2002
Environmental ethics arguments usually fall into the "future-generations" pitfall
A broader argument is the "survival of humanity" argument which includes "future-generations" as a premise. I dont mean quality-of-life for future generations but rather their very existence.
No rights need to be established. I am in favor of colonizing space because I think humanity should not put all its eggs in one basket. Likewise, I am in favor of not destroying our environment because it is clear that we are not fully aware of the negative consequences of our actions. Caution is the wisest course.
posted by vacapinta at 4:24 PM on June 3, 2002
A broader argument is the "survival of humanity" argument which includes "future-generations" as a premise. I dont mean quality-of-life for future generations but rather their very existence.
No rights need to be established. I am in favor of colonizing space because I think humanity should not put all its eggs in one basket. Likewise, I am in favor of not destroying our environment because it is clear that we are not fully aware of the negative consequences of our actions. Caution is the wisest course.
posted by vacapinta at 4:24 PM on June 3, 2002
Environmental ethics arguments usually fall into the "future-generations" pitfall
I'm not sure about usually. Many of these arguements are based on present living standards. Chesapeake Bay is just one of the many that got out of hand in barely a decade.
But looking further into the future than I usually care to, I seriously wonder what would happen if events were put into place that were irreversable? How could we restore the melting polar ice caps after it's deemed "too late?" What is "too late," how is gauged, what are our options, and when could it happen? A possible worst is the atmosphere will eventually boil off the planet. From there, who knows whether life will remain. I suppose it really all depends on how prepared that life is...
Maybe the same concern that environmentalists have for the environment can be applied to astronomers that track projectiles that will eventually collide with earth. Sure, one of it's purposes is to facilitate awareness, and sometimes seems even a bit obsurd when comets are identified threats twenty thousand years from now.
Yet I believe that apart from the basic drive to just consume, replicate and live in the present, we humans can also acknowledge long term threats and plan to prevent them. This is nothing short of amazing. Especially if the purpose of life is to continue life no matter what the cost. (insert darwin theory of us being josted off the planet like the dinosaurs to make room for ants and cockroaches here) I suppose it's only when we collectively acknowlege whether continued humanity is important that a serious reform in pollutants will be made. For now we'll just leave all this hippy stuff up to whoever's in charge and take our SUV's to the highway.
posted by samsara at 4:47 PM on June 3, 2002
I'm not sure about usually. Many of these arguements are based on present living standards. Chesapeake Bay is just one of the many that got out of hand in barely a decade.
But looking further into the future than I usually care to, I seriously wonder what would happen if events were put into place that were irreversable? How could we restore the melting polar ice caps after it's deemed "too late?" What is "too late," how is gauged, what are our options, and when could it happen? A possible worst is the atmosphere will eventually boil off the planet. From there, who knows whether life will remain. I suppose it really all depends on how prepared that life is...
Maybe the same concern that environmentalists have for the environment can be applied to astronomers that track projectiles that will eventually collide with earth. Sure, one of it's purposes is to facilitate awareness, and sometimes seems even a bit obsurd when comets are identified threats twenty thousand years from now.
Yet I believe that apart from the basic drive to just consume, replicate and live in the present, we humans can also acknowledge long term threats and plan to prevent them. This is nothing short of amazing. Especially if the purpose of life is to continue life no matter what the cost. (insert darwin theory of us being josted off the planet like the dinosaurs to make room for ants and cockroaches here) I suppose it's only when we collectively acknowlege whether continued humanity is important that a serious reform in pollutants will be made. For now we'll just leave all this hippy stuff up to whoever's in charge and take our SUV's to the highway.
posted by samsara at 4:47 PM on June 3, 2002
May I condense this debate?
Native American quote paraphrased:
"The earth does not belong to us, we belong to the earth." Thus we diminish ourselves anytime we diminish the earth.
posted by nofundy at 5:12 AM on June 4, 2002
Native American quote paraphrased:
"The earth does not belong to us, we belong to the earth." Thus we diminish ourselves anytime we diminish the earth.
posted by nofundy at 5:12 AM on June 4, 2002
Another Native American quote paraphrased:
"Let's hang this guy upside down from a tree and build a small fire under his head." Thus Apaches diminished the number of prisoners they had taken in raids on other tribes' settlements.
Perhaps one should distinguish between the "Rainbow Family Hippie"-type tribes and the "Conquering Hun Horde Invader"-type tribes...
Personally I prefer the latter. More character.
N.B.: there are now more lawyers, per capita, among the Navajo (Dineh) tribe then there are among Jews. Once a warrior tribe, always a warrior tribe.
posted by kablam at 7:06 AM on June 4, 2002
"Let's hang this guy upside down from a tree and build a small fire under his head." Thus Apaches diminished the number of prisoners they had taken in raids on other tribes' settlements.
Perhaps one should distinguish between the "Rainbow Family Hippie"-type tribes and the "Conquering Hun Horde Invader"-type tribes...
Personally I prefer the latter. More character.
N.B.: there are now more lawyers, per capita, among the Navajo (Dineh) tribe then there are among Jews. Once a warrior tribe, always a warrior tribe.
posted by kablam at 7:06 AM on June 4, 2002
« Older | We will strike first Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Yep, demons are a serious issue all right. But a problem?
posted by kablam at 7:59 AM on June 3, 2002