India Proudly Sinks the Durban Climate Change Talks

Apart from hardcore greens and hardline hawks, India’s enviro minister Jayanti Nataraj is getting high marks from her countrymen as well as other developing nations for refusing to bow to EU pressure to commit to legally binding emission cuts.  As Ron Bailey reported, the Durban talks were saved from total collapse after India and China agreed to language that accomplishes the remarkable double feat of ensuring that the world will never do anything to avert climate “catastrophe”—while keeping alive the illusion that it will.

The EU wanted all the Durban attendees to finalize a road map by 2015 that would commit them to binding cuts by 2020. But Nataraj swiftly dumped a bucket of Himalayan ice—which, incidentally, is defying IPCC’s fake predictions and refusing to melt—on even that distant goal. “How do I give a blank check signing away the livelihood rights of 1.2 billion members of our population?" she demanded to know.

Finally, she agreed to work on an agreement that would be legally binding by 2020 if India agrees to it. Got it? No? Here’s how one blogger, obviously dismayed by India’s intransigence, explained it:

The agreement initially called for “a protocol, another legal instrument or a legal outcome” to be drawn up by 2015 and enforceable by 2020. At India’s insistence, it was changed to “a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force.” (Emphasis added)

Those two words will give India leeway to demand that any final agreement be based on principles of “equity” and “common but differentiated responsibility.” In plain English this means that India won’t commit to any emission cuts unless the developed countries that, as far as it is concerned, are responsible for causing the problem in the first place agree to two things: go first and cut the lion’s share.

This was precisely the sticking point that torpedoed America’s participation in the 1997 Kyoto Treaty. And if President Obama, an ardent climate change warrior, couldn’t ramrod it through a Democratic-controlled Congress, it is unlikely that any other president ever could.

But America no longer is the only villain in the climate change melodrama. Canada this week formally withdrew from the Kyoto Treaty in order to avoid being slapped with $14 billion in fines next year for failing to deliver on its promised cuts. Canada’s environmental minister Peter Kent maintains that Canada would have to resort to extreme measures, like pulling all motor vehicles from its roads and shutting heat off to every building in the country in order to meet its targets. (He blamed the Liberal Party for agreeing to the treaty “without any regard as to how it would be fulfilled.”)

This may or may not be hogwash, but with most of the major “polluters”—America, Canada, India and China—ducking and dodging, I think it is safe to start singing a requiem to a global climate change treaty.

(My column on why it would be folly for developing countries to commit to binding cuts even if one accepts global warming science as gospel here.)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    In other climate news the hurricane predictors admit that their yearly hurricane predictions are worthless. And to their great credit have decided to stop doing them.

    http://www.ottawacitizen.com/m.....id=5847032

  • Almanian||

    Well, whatever happens is due to "climate change", so #WINNING!

  • ||

    the remarkable double feat of ensuring that the world will never do anything to avert climate “catastrophe”—while keeping alive the illusion that it will.

    Exactly the formula for maintaining an endless flow of cash for phony-baloney jobs and conferences.

    The real mission of the Durban meeting was, obviously, accomplished.

  • Almanian||

    TOP.

    Men.

  • Top Men||

    A: B6
    B: Miss. C5
    A: Miss. D8
    B: Miss. H10
    A: Hit.
    B: G10
    A: Hit. You sunk my destroyer.

    etc.

  • Almanian||

    Jeebus. The fact that countries continue to engage in this malarkey - an excellent example of the overused "veritable Kabuki dance" - is astounding to me.

    Why put up with the ruse? Why waste the money and time frogging around with something that's never going to happen? Why....

    Oh...power, money and rock and roll. And power.

    Right. Move along - nothing to see here.

  • Old Mexican||

    India Proudly Sinks the Durban Climate Change Talks


    And I am proud to say I am proud of them for being just a bit less insane than the Europeans and some Americans.

    They are thinking: Uh, maybe there is NO volcano god, after all...

  • rts||

    So far, the Conservative government (in Canada) is about to scrap the long-gun registry and pull out of Kyoto. Two pretty positive steps since being elected without much going backwards.

    The Apocalypse is nigh.

  • ||

    If the US is hopeless, Canada wouldn't be a bad place to move to. I would be very happy if Canada turned into a sane country.

  • rts||

    Me too, but we're a long ways from sane, trust me.

    (e.g. scrapping the long-gun registry implies we still have the handgun registry... why?)

  • ||

    What's a "handgun"?

  • Juice||

    It's what you use to fingerbang.

  • Ted S.||

    Yeah, you guys need to change the name of Kraft Dinner to something more sane.

  • Jordan||

    Canada will not be sane until milk no longer comes in bags.

  • rts||

    I haven't seen milk in bags for at least 15 years.

  • ||

    Canada has mass suckitude and statism (the two are highly correlated), however its ironic that if i tried to play online poker, i would commit a C felony in WA State, not to mention federal restrictions. But if i go to canada or russia, i can play

    We are talking POKER here, about as American as you can get

    Canada is GENERALLY better on the WOD,although they are far MORE regulatory on dietary supplements than the USA is.

    We have DSHEA after all

  • Shmenge||

    Milk in bags is still pretty prevelant in Ontario.

  • db||

    I won't consider moving to Canada unless they reverse the decision to end lawful ownership of machineguns. Believe it or not, Canada actually used to have better gun laws than the U.S., at least for possession, if not for bearing them.

  • ||

    I have friends from rural western canada. They are VERY pro firearms and pro RKBA.

    liberal vancouver hipsters generally aint

    My inlaws recently drove through canada to fish in alaska in a motor home. They WERE allowed to take their handguns which i found interesting. Granted, thats because the RV is treated as a mobile home under the relevant statutes and thus it wasnt considered like carrying in a motor vehicle. As long as they didnt have them in the drivers seat, etc

  • db||

    Once nice thing about canadian gun laws is there's no restriction on barrel lengths; e.g. no such thing as a separate class for short barreled rifles and shotguns, at least as of the last time I checked.

  • rts||

    Barrel length matters, a lot:

    List of Restricted and Prohibited Firearms

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: John,

    If the US is hopeless, Canada wouldn't be a bad place to move to. I would be very happy if Canada turned into a sane country.


    I don't think the US is hopeless. I still see a glimmer of hope on the horizon:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

    http://www.theblaze.com/storie.....k-at-paul/

  • Apatheist||

    I promised myself after 2008 that I would only be pessimistic this go around but damn it's getting hard. The differences from last time are pretty stark.

  • ||

    The climate talks were sunk well before anyone arrived in Durban; it just needed to be formalized by someone, and India decided to step up to the plate.

    Everyone knows this shit is baloney, but the fools and suckers who have bought into it will do anything and everything they can to pretend they aren't fucking morons, including waste everyone's time and money in order to try and do so.

  • Paul||

    I believe that the quickest way to kill the global warming debate is to get Republicans on board. Evangelical christians have started to come on board, which actually made sense-- creationism and all. But get mainstream Republicans behind global warming, and the whole issue is dead.

  • Juice||

    Newt was on the case, but then flipped.

  • Old Mexican||

    But Nataraj swiftly dumped a bucket of Himalayan ice — which, incidentally, is defying IPCC's fake predictions and refusing to melt — on even that distant goal. "How do I give a blank check signing away the livelihood rights of 1.2 billion members of our population?" she demanded to know.


    How, indeed? But that is exactly what the EU and the IPCC technocrats wanted you to do, mademoiselle Nataraj. They needed you to commit to some ridiculous compromise just so they could have a justification for the graft that they were going to extort from the rest of us - in the tune of $100 billion a YEAR.

    This is nothing more than a racket, a mob-style con job on the rest of us. Good for the Indians to ask for such impossible conditions; at least that gives the rest of humanity further time to see that the AGW scam is exactly that.

  • tarran||

    The scam is doomed; no institution can suppress science for long.

  • ||

    How do I give a blank check signing away the livelihood rights of 1.2 billion members of our population?

    Obviously, in exchange for lucrative series of globe-hopping sinecures.

    She must be new at this.

  • fish||

    I'm sure someone will quietly take her aside and explain how it all works.

  • Atanarjuat||

    The next James Bond should be based on him sneaking into luxury hotel rooms to uncover evidence of a climate change scam.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Atanarjuat,

    The next James Bond should be based on him sneaking into luxury hotel rooms to uncover evidence of a climate change scam.


    That's the plot of Quantum Of Solance.

  • jtuf||

    Hazah, Hazah!

  • Paul||

    . “How do I give a blank check signing away the livelihood rights of 1.2 billion members of our population?"

    Good gravy! Someone who understands the fundamental philosophy behind U.S. Constitution better than our own political class!

    In this country, when you start bitching about blank checks to power and rights, someone from stage left shouts "Commerce Clause" and the debate is over.

  • ||

    He blamed the Liberal Party for agreeing to the treaty “without any regard as to how it would be fulfilled.”

    That's leftwing policy-making in a nutshell is it not?

  • Tman||

    They had to pass it to see what's in it...

    Liberal Policies are like Christmas every day!

  • ||

    Speaking of liberal religions, I read Slate because I daily find things so stupid that I say "no way could anyone be this parochial and ignorant". Yet there it is day after day proving me wrong. This from an article entitled "ten movies you didn't see in 2011 but should have".

    Texas Killing Fields This movie was going to be directed by Danny Boyle (who claimed it was “so dark it would never get made”) before being helmed by Ami Canaan Mann, daughter of Michael Mann. Two cops, one a devout Christian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Watchmen) and one a young punk (Sam Worthington, Avatar), keep finding their daily routine in League City, Texas, interrupted by the endless string of corpses dumped in a nearby bayou. It’s as sprawling and clinical as a Michael Mann movie, but his daughter isn’t so much interested in following the whodunit plot as she is in painting a portrait of a part of America where caring for someone smaller than yourself is a sign of weakness and where empathy is considered mental illness. This isn’t a movie about law enforcement; it’s about those endless Texas fields and how they bring out the violence hiding in everyone’s heart. (Released on 10 screens, it did $45,000 at the box office. Now available on DVD and VOD.)

    Texas is all about not taking care of anyone smaller than yourself. And those endless Texas fields, as opposed to the endless fields in say New Jersey or Nebraska, just turn people into killers. They really write this shit with a straight face. And their readers read it with a straight face.

  • Apatheist||

    I have my disagreement with some of the more country folk here in Texas but this "caring for someone smaller than yourself is a sign of weakness and where empathy is considered mental illness" couldn't be further from the truth.

  • ||

    That is not true anywhere. People are pretty much the same good and bad anywhere you go. You really have to be completely unaware to think otherwise.

  • ||

    Yes. THIS. ive been a cop in New England, Hawaii, and WA. Three VERY different places, culturally, and ive lived in california and DC amongst other places. Ive been to several central american countries, mexico, the middle east, etc

    People are people

    Urban hipster liberal douchebag Seattleites love to look down on people in trailer parks or places like enumclaw or renton or kent.

    People are people.

    I do tend to get along with "country" people better since they seem more culturally libertarian as a group ... More self sufficient, less reliant on govt, less steeped in ivory tower bullshit, etc.

    But their basic character and goodness is similar to other people

    People at their worst, people at their best, and ordinary people placed in extreme sitatuions are what my job gives me the privilege to experience, and when the bullshit is stripped away, and true character or lack thereof is revealed.... People are people.. (cue depeche mode).

  • ||

    I travelled to Texas in 1983 to help the local phone company rebuild after Alicia ripped up their facilities.
    On a day off I was driving around the countryside to check out the scenery.
    I was in my mid 30s and long past my hippie daze.
    I picked up a kid hitchhiking and took him to the next town down the road. He knew I was from out of state as he had seen my Illinois plates.
    As he got out of my truck he tossed me a short bag of weed and said welcome to Texas!
    Three cheers for Lone Star Charity!

  • ||

    cash, grass or ass! nobody rides for FREE!

  • ||

    “Bond reflected that good Americans were fine people and that most of them seemed to come from Texas.”
    ― Ian Fleming, Casino Royale

  • protefeed||

    You have to remember that for most liberals, "empathy" is defined as "not caring or even noticing the people you rob so you can feel good about 'helping' the other people you give the loot to, after possibly first taking a cut of the swag for yourself"

  • Paul||

    "caring for someone smaller than yourself is a sign of weakness and where empathy is considered mental illness

    They have the death penalty in Texas, so ipso facto, it's true.

  • Apatheist||

    Is this supposed to be serious? I oppose the death penalty but I don't have empathy for murderers and rapists and I certainly wouldn't think of them as someone with a weakness who I should care for.

  • Paul||

    *sigh*

    Welcome to Hit & Run. Humor detector: reset.

  • tarran||

    The Texans I know, even the assholes, are pretty charitable people.

    I think the notion that Texans are culturally disinclined to charity is hilariously wrong. In fact, at times, they are too charitable.

  • Old Mexican||

    This isn’t a movie about law enforcement; it’s about those endless Texas fields and how they bring out the violence hiding in everyone’s heart.


    Sure. And by the same token, Siberians don't go on a self-destructing rampage only because the population is simply too dispersed.... right?

    I don't think it is so difficult to find stupidity in places such as Slate, John - you just need to throw a rock.

  • ||

    It is not just ordinary stupid I go looking for Old Mexican. It is the unbelievable, no fucking way anyone could believe that much less get it published in a mainstream publication, kind of stupid I seek. And Slate gives it to me good and hard every single day.

  • ||

    That's what she said.

  • Paul||

    Canada’s environmental minister Peter Kent maintains that Canada would have to resort to extreme measures, like pulling all motor vehicles from its roads and shutting heat off to every building in the country in order to meet its targets

    So even Canada has discovered what the ultimate point of global warming alarmism is.

  • ||

    Of course, you'd have to be an utter moron to think Canada isn't pro-global warming. It's fucking cold up there.

  • protefeed||

    Ummm, there are a lot of Canadians who are AGW alarmists. I've spent time in the winter on the Mainland, shivering in the Washington state cold, while natives there talk about how they need to keep the earth from getting warmer because that would be bad or something.

  • ||

    That's what they say, all while plotting to make Yukon beachfront a huge tourist destination.

  • Tony||

    Governments acting out of short-term political cowardice and self-interest can't address this problem at the necessary scale, so what makes you think markets will, which don't factor the long-term into anything?

  • tarran||

    so what makes you think markets will, which don't factor the long-term into anything?

    Do you mind if I email that statement to the CEO's of METLife, NY Life, AGLA and LSW?

    I'm sure they would enjoy the laugh at the cluelessness of your superstitions.

  • Tony||

    Any of those motivated more by long-term sustainability of the human species than quarterly returns?

  • Sevo||

    Tony|12.13.11 @ 1:31PM|#
    "...so what makes you think markets will, which don't factor the long-term into anything?"

    Shithead, try posting without lying for once.

  • Restoras||

    Governments acting out of short-term political cowardice and self-interest can't address this problem at the necessary scale

    This says it all. Global Government - because the national and municipal governments we have already have done such a wonderful job.

  • LC||

    "Governments acting out of short-term political cowardice and self-interest can't address this problem.."

    An example of when politicians acting out of self interest is a GOOD thing.

  • Tony||

    It does belie the assertion that governments are in on a massive conspiracy to enrich certain interests. You'd think if this were all made up it wouldn't be so difficult for countries to agree.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the Pederast,

    Governments acting out of short-term political cowardice and self-interest can't address this problem at the necessary scale, so what makes you think markets will, which don't factor the long-term into anything?


    What makes you think there's a problem to solve in the first place, you question-begging pederast?

  • Tony||

    Because current science says there is.

    You discredit everything you ever say by selectively rejecting science when its implications are inconvenient. We went through this exact thing with evolution.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the Scientific Ignoramus,

    Because current science says there is.


    That's the most stupid thing I have ever read from you, sockpuppet. Science does not describe problems, you nitwit, it describes phenomena.

    You discredit everything you ever say by selectively rejecting science when its implications are inconvenient.


    Actually, the IPCC and their enablers have been doing that for years. You are just wilfully or stupidly blind to the scam.

    We went through this exact thing with evolution.


    No, that's not the case. The evidence for evolution was known since the time of Aristotle. "Climate Change" was invented just a few years ago when AGW became less and less believable.

  • Tony||

    Clearly a lack of education does not come with corresponding humility. You have no idea what you're talking about with respect to evolution, climate change, or how the term "climate change" came about (anti-green interests pushed it as a nicer sounding alternative).

    You must realize you are making an extraordinary claim too: that the global scientific establishment, most of the world's governments, in fact just about everyone except Republicans and you guys, are all engaged in a massive conspiracy to peddle a lie for motives that are murky at best. The level of self-delusion required is epic.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the Petulant Pederast,

    Clearly a lack of education does not come with corresponding humility.


    I've known a lot of very educated fools who are veritable assholes - like you.

    You have no idea what you're talking about with respect to evolution, climate change, or how the term "climate change" came about (anti-green interests pushed it as a nicer sounding alternative).


    You're an idiot, sockpuppet. I have been debating in favor of evolution even before your ass was sold to pimps in DC, which is a long time.

    "Climate Change" was not created by so-called "anti-green" anything, you stupid dolt.

    You must realize you are making an extraordinary claim too: that the global scientific establishment[...] are all engaged in a massive conspiracy to peddle a lie for motives that are murky at best.


    The extraordinary claim is to say that the GLOBAL SCIENTIFIC establishment is an establishment - which is not true as science is not an institution, you religious zealot. AGW is still being hotly debated; the only people that were saying "the science is settled" were people like YOU and Al Gore, not the "global scientific establishment."

    The level of self-delusion required is epic.


    You lack a sense of irony.

  • Tony||

    “’Climate change’ is less frightening than ’global warming.’ ... While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge”

    --Frank Luntz

    It's not being hotly debated among scientists. The science is, in fact, settled, at least with respect to the questions you have about it. Would you care to provide a cite for the claim that the fundamentals of climate change science are still being hotly debated in the scientific community?

    The last figures I saw were about 98% on one side. That's not a debate any longer, it's a fact. At the very least it's something you should treat as a fact until you have a very good reason not to.

    This is exactly like the creationism/evolution wars. Asserting a controversy where none exists was a primary tactic of creationists.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the Clueless,

    Tony, imbecile, Frank Luntz didn't invent the term, he's not that clever.

    It's not being hotly debated among scientists.


    Yes, it is.

    The science is, in fact, settled, at least with respect to the questions you have about it.


    That's not true, sockpuppet. If the enablers have to rely on essays from popular magazines and high school term papers to prop up their argument, it is clear to anybody with sense that the science is NOT settled at all.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    The last figures I saw were about 98% on one side.

    On one side on which question? And notice that they never ask scientists how sure they are. All we know from that is that 98% of scientists think there's a >50% chance that the proposition is true.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Tony, stop comparing climate change to evolution. I believe in both, you believe in both, but we both know we can't be anywhere near as certain about claims about the climate as we are about natural selection.

  • Tony||

    That's an academic question--both are certain enough that the burden of proof is on the deniers.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    burden of proof

    I don't know what that means.

  • Tony||

    And can we go to your anarcho-capitalist utopia just for a minute so I can respond to your repeated slander the old fashioned way?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the Pederast who denies he is a pederast who wants children not to work so he can have them,

    And can we go to your anarcho-capitalist utopia just for a minute so I can respond to your repeated slander the old fashioned way?


    You mean by a trial by ordeal?

  • Tony||

    Trial by who can hit harder and run faster. You know, your utopia.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the Suckerpunching Pederast,

    Trial by who can hit harder and run faster. You know, your utopia.


    In my utopia, men don't run. Since your ass belongs to pimps in DC, then the appellative "man" simply does not apply to you. So if you want to fight, we better go to your utopia where everybody's a slave and simply accuse each other of not being sufficiently subservient - see who is the most believable.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    So Tony doesn't understand anarcho-capitalism. Yet more evidence that he's never read a book by anyone he doesn't agree with.

  • Tony||

    What, competing for-profit private arbitration services? I don't understand how optional justice works.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the Television-less,

    I don't understand how optional justice works.


    You haven't seen much Judge Judy, I guess... or you're simply playing dumb, like always.

  • ||

    Wow, going all tuff gai on us.

    But seriously, you wouldn't want to go to ancap land. You might discover that you like freedom. The horror!

  • Tony||

    I have all the freedom I could possibly want from my society, except perhaps that which comes from a bigger paycheck. What more is there? What freedom, really, are you lacking?

  • ||

    Really? You've never heard of the "USA Patriot" Act? The unwarranted searches? The president asserting he can imprison or kill anybody he likes and not answer for it? The fucking TSA? Shall I go on?

    Oh, wait. Your boy is in the White House now, so all that is cool with you? You're even more of an authoritarian fuck than I thought.

  • Tony||

    Yeah that's pretty bad, but I'm OK because I'm white.

    Everything would be great if libertarians focused on those actual abuses of liberty, but they seem overwhelmingly concerned with fake ones like paying taxes.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Freedom to spend the products of my labour as I see fit. Freedom to establish my own currency. Freedom to sell/comsume narcotics. Freedom to sell experimental medicine/ test that medicine on willing participants without the permission of the government. Freedom to contract with people of different nationalities. Freedom to sell my kidney. And there are a million other regulations which don't effect me at all but which do prevent somebody else from living the life they want to live.

  • Paul||

    Governments acting out of short-term political cowardice and self-interest can't address this problem at the necessary scale

    Tony, the necessary scale is removing all cars from the roads and turning off all the heat to every building. That's the necessary scale.

  • Tony||

    Assuming that's true, you think it's preferable to pretend like nothing's wrong and acquiesce to massive disruption, if not extinction, of the human species? Because you don't want to sacrifice a single aspect of your unsustainable modern life while you're living it, or a single cent of profits to the oil industry?

  • Paul||

    Right, because it's a binary situation. If we don't take every car off the road and shut down the heat to every building, thus forcing a massive human migration (and disruption) to warmer climes, the human race will become extinct! Take that Canada!

  • Tony||

    That was your claim. I think a rapid (meaning government subsidized) transition to electric cars and mass transit as well as clean energy production won't be all that painful, though it will increase in pain (and cost) the longer we wait.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the Physics and Economics Ignorant Pederast,

    I think a rapid (meaning government subsidized) transition to electric cars and mass transit as well as clean energy production won't be all that painful


    It will be simply highly polluting, as those technologies are woefully inefficient when it comes to energy conversion and output. If something is inefficient, you need MORE of it - how could such be "green" is beyond me.

    Then again, a pimp-owned ass is not going to be a physics major or minor or anything.

  • Tony||

    Unpaid propagandist for Big Oil calling others pimped?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the Pederast who thinks everybody else is pimped,

    Unpaid propagandist for Big Oil calling others pimped?


    Yeah, nice comeback, asshole - a tu quoque.

    What's next? "Uh... uh... uh... Well, your mamma is fat!"

  • Tony||

    I was supposed to be formally logical in response to name calling?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the Forgetfull,

    I was supposed to be formally logical in response to name calling?


    How quickly you forget! You were the one that pretty much said you did not own your own ass, a preposterous assertion which can only be understood as your ass belonging to pimps in DC - which I can believe is true, in YOUR case. YOU were the one that said that such a thing as child prostitution due to lack of work opportunities did not exist, despite the fact that it does, it is documented. This negation and th fact that so many grown men travel to exotic Indonesia where kids are not allowed to work tells me there's something going on there with you.

    Either that, or you could be more careful next time about what you want to argue, you fool.

  • Tony||

    I'm perfectly well aware that child prostitution exists, you're just too stupid to understand what I was saying, which essentially is that libertarianism becomes brutally pragmatic when convenient, odd for a utopian ideology. I don't think either prostitution or sweatshop labor is the proper vocation of a child, so an argument in favor of one to prevent the other is easily reversed and inadequate to the problem.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    But you do realise that it's easier to ban child labour than it is to ban child prostitution? Isn't there a lesser evil here?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the Obfuscator,

    I'm perfectly well aware that child prostitution exists, you're just too stupid to understand what I was saying, which essentially is that libertarianism becomes brutally pragmatic when convenient,


    Yes, I know what you were saying, which is just pure bunk. Libertarianism is not pragmatic or non-pragmatic, it simply means achieving as the greatest political goal the most liberty for individuals. It is individuals who are either pragmatic or deontological, with the consequences that such entail.

    It is you who have shown a total lack of understanding of even the most basic of concepts, which tells me you lack perspective. You argue through platitudes, always have. The moment you totally ignored a clear and cogent argument I made in favor of personal choice vs government-imposed solutions, I lost every ounce of respect I had for you.

    You can go to hell to be ass-raped by your pimps in DC for all I care. Fuck you.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the Melodramatic Pederast,

    Assuming that's true, you think it's preferable to pretend like nothing's wrong and acquiesce to massive disruption, if not extinction, of the human species?


    You're an imbecile.

  • ||

    Assuming that's true, you think it's preferable to pretend like nothing's wrong and acquiesce to massive disruption, if not extinction, of the human species?

    Hell, shutting down society to the extent you want would result in a "massive disruption" of the human species. Do you really think that the current human population could survive in a primitive state?

    You need to completely think through the implications of your totalitarian schemes. And yes, only a totalitarian society could possibly even try to implement the solution you're calling for.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Enjoy Every Sandwich,

    Hell, shutting down society to the extent you want would result in a "massive disruption" of the human species.


    Which is why I called him an inbecile, for not seeing this contradiction.

    That besides having his ass owned by pimps in DC. That would suck. I pity him.

  • Tony||

    Especially if large numbers of people are kept ignorant and are thus resistant to giving their democratic consent.

    How many valued human institutions are we gonna destroy in the name of profits for fossil fuel extractors and burners?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the Question Beggar,

    Especially if large numbers of people are kept ignorant and are thus resistant to giving their democratic consent.


    Ah, so that's it - people are ignorant.

    How many valued human institutions are we gonna destroy in the name of profits for fossil fuel extractors and burners?


    How about this: When will you stop going to Indonesia to "help" little children?

    Ah, so you don't like loaded questions? I thought you DID: You have a penchant for them.

  • ||

    This has nothing to do with "profits for fossil fuel extractors and burners" and your insistence on constantly turning the conversation that way makes me think that's all you really care about--getting those evil capitalists.

    Set aside your fantasy about hanging plutocrats for a minute. Think instead about the consequences of severely disrupting modern society in the name of a "solution" that you don't have any way of knowing will change the climate one bit. That society isn't an abstraction--people live in it.

  • Tony||

    Even if I accept your premise, it comes down to a choice between two types of massive disruptions with no third alternative to preserve the status quo.

    It's beyond dispute that the very least we should do is stop digging the hole we're in (stop adding to the concentration of greenhouse gases).

    And I just don't buy it when a libertarian suddenly becomes pessimistic about human ingenuity. The changes required are big but the only things really standing in the way are politics and business interests, not science or technology.

  • ||

    I'm not pessimistic about human ingenuity. I just don't believe that it comes from government. And your solutions don't have anything to do with human ingenuity. They have to do with political control.

  • Tony||

    You can't forbid murder until you make a law against it. Same with polluting the common environment. Right now governments allow massive force. If there is a free-market way to prevent that I'd love to hear it.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the Physics ignoramus,

    It's beyond dispute that the very least we should do is stop digging the hole we're in (stop adding to the concentration of greenhouse gases).


    Once again, you're an idiot. People can't stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, one. Second, most of that CO2 is absorbed by plants and the oceans in a still superficially-known cycle.

    You have an extremely simplistic view of the atmosphere as this black box where you add A and get B. That's not how complex systems work, which is what the East Anglia bozos were finding out the HARD WAY.

  • Tony||

    You really don't know what you're talking about and you embarrass yourself every time you talk about this.

  • ||

    "You really don't know what you're talking about and you embarrass yourself every time you talk about this."
    No, you sure fucking don't, Tony..you sure fucking don't.

  • Tony||

    This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.

    * It may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since October 2011.
    * Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since October 2011.

  • Juice||

    Assuming that's true, you think it's preferable to pretend like nothing's wrong and acquiesce to massive disruption, if not extinction, of the human species?

    You say the science is settled, but this is the main place where there is no science and nothing is settled.

    They were saying "settled" about 6-7 years ago too, but they recently revised downward their estimates for climate sensitivity to increases in CO2.

    Now, you're saying that increasing CO2 will definitely cause "massive disruption" or "extinction" of the human species. There is nothing to support this prediction but wild speculation.

    I've gone on science message boards and asked people (physicists and the like, alarmists all) to lay out the case, supported with evidence that increasing CO2 will cause mass extinctions and the end of human civilization (or close to it). The reply is usually "no one is claiming that!" Uh huh.

  • ||

  • ||

    stupid fucking spoof names.

  • tarran||

    No, it works :)

  • db||

    Check the "Name" field next time you post from your smartphone while driving.

  • tarran||

    It's not going to happen.

    Being able to call someone while driving is
    a) too important a convenience
    b) being made safer and safer via technology.

    They'll make noise but never get anywhere. (fingers crossed)

  • protefeed||

    Don't be so confident. The idiots on the Honolulu City Council have already banned cell phone use while driving. I don't see any structural barrier to other government entities doing so, too.

    I still use cell phones when driving when I need to, but now I first scan all the mirrors for cops so I don't get ticketed.

  • ||

    Under WA law, we cops are exempt from prohibitions against cell phone use while driving... As well as having laptop screens visible while driving...

    DOUBLE STANDARD. ELEVNETYONEZZZZZZ!!

    Pigz!!

  • tarran||

    Actually, yes, it is a double standard.

    The fact you can cite it laughingly speaks volumes about your character.

    It it the end of the world? No.

    It merely goes to show what a useless, worthless law it is.

  • ||

    yes. it IS a double standard

    otoh, cops have sufficient training and standards such that we have less than 50% the collision rate per hour driven DESPITE distractions such as looking for suspects while driving, using lights and siren occasionally (and people do not necessarily do intelligent shit when they see those things...), having an MDT in front of our eyes while driving, police radio transmissions etc.

    one of the hardest things for many police trainees to do well enough to pass probation and field training - is multitasking

    its exceptionally important for patrol, and people who can't do it well wash out pretty quickly

    it's also one of the "average " person's biggest weakness when driving, and the cause or strong contributing factor to many collisions

    contrary to popular belief, the primary thing field sobriety tests measure, and one of the primary abilities that intoxicants diminish is the ability to divide attention

    the walk and turn and one leg stand test are NOT primarily balance tests. they are primarily divided attention tests (which is why people can improve if they practice them.)

    regardless, driving is a privilege not a right and legislators CAN and DO set even arbitrary restrictions on conduct while doing same

    imo, such restrictions SHOULD HAVE at least a reasonable basis in data.

    iow, they should be science based.

    but yes, i agree 100% . it IS a double standard, just like having an MDT screen visible while driving so we can get updates on cases we are enroute to etc.

    the law accepts the tradeoffs, at least in part because it has recognized cops have a substantially lower collision rate (according to NHTSA stats presented during my EVOC and PIT training classes) even GIVEN such distractions

  • ||

    Distracted driving is an overused term. There are always distractions. Part of learning how to drive is learning to manage distractions.

  • ||

    absolutely correct. but ceteris paribus, fewer distractions = fewer collisions

    granted, some drivers are much better at multitasking than others. but in the aggregate, it's true

  • tarran||

    That's actually pretty interesting; I had never considered the basis for the tests.

    As to your point about multi-tasking, that's spot on; ADD runs in my family, and I have heard that people with ADD get into accidents at a higher rate than the rest of the population precisely because they lose the awareness of what's going on in front of them.

    This knowledge caused me to change my driving habits pretty considerably. I don't use the cell phone without a hands-free kit and use it very sparingly.

  • ||

    that's good. and fwiw, when people are aware of a shortcoming (and especially if sober), they can consciously use techniques to mitigate or even eliminate its negative effects

    for example, i've never seen any stats, but my understanding is that blind people may not be more likely than sighted people to get involved in auto-ped collisions.

    clearly, not being sighted is a DRAWBACK to avoid being struck by a car.

    however, knowing that it IS a drawback, they are going to be less likely to dart out into traffic etc. and do other stupid shit that makes them far more likely to be hit by a car

    in regards to the FST's, for example, when performing the walk and turn, the subject must remember how many steps to take, how to take the turn, to count each step out loud, to make each step heel to toe, etc.

    this is not difficult for (most) sober people, but as impairment rises, it becomes substantially more difficult

    impaired people tend to concentrate so hard on ONE aspect (like touching heel to toe), that the other aspects fall apart (they take the wrong # of steps, forget how to turn, etc.)

    you very rarely see a sober person stop at a stop sign and wait for it to turn green

    this is not that unusual with impaired people, because if they know they are impaired and concentrating on "drive straight drive straight", they can't concentrate on other shit

  • tarran||

    you very rarely see a sober person stop at a stop sign

    I did that once when my ex was following me after she had had a court hearing go badly for her. I was trying to figure out if she had a gun.

  • Restoras||

    Can't we just ban idiots from driving?

  • ||

    Sure, but then who would drive the squad cars?

  • ||

    Funn,y but the NHTSA studies mentioned during EVOC class show cops have less than 1/2 the collision rate of noncops, even considerng the distractions of radio traffic, MDTs, etc.

  • tarran||

    Probably has something to do with the fact everyone is trying desperately to stay away from you.

    It would be interesting to look at the single vehicle accident rates for taxi-cab drivers or some similar profession.

  • ||

    this shows your utter ignorance. spend at least a little time IN a patrol car, and you will see that people do some VERY dumb shit when they see a patrol car.

    some people will slam on the brakes, because they think they need to drive 30 in a 45 mph zone and they will do other weird shit

    only somebody who has never driven a patrol car could make a comment so idiotic

    fwiw, i have driven an unmarked undercover car that would never be made as a cop car vs. a cop car.

    sure, people WHEN THEY SEE the cop car might be less likely to engage in some sorts of reckless behavior, but a substantial %age of people freeze up and do REALLY stupid negligent shit when they see a cop car, and ESPECIALLY when they see lights and siren

    sorry but your comment (while predictable) is entirely divorced from reality)

    it is typical of those who attempt to 'splain away any statistic that puts cops in a positive light

    and at least in my agency, one of the most scrutinized aspects of officer behavior is collision rates

    we are also held to a higher standard vis a vis discipline. our standard is "preventable" which is a higher standard than "at fault".

    iow, even if we are not more than 50% at fault (the civilian standard), we are disciplined if it was preventable. iow, if a reasonable officer , could have reasonably prevented the collision EVEN IF it wasn't his fault.

    again, try to explain away , but it just reinforces my point about antipolice bigotry

    ideologues in general, will try to splain away data that conflicts with their prejudices

  • tarran||

    Dunphy,

    You might want to re-read my comment and realize that what I said, and what you think i said are
    a) different &
    b) the difference says more about your guily conscience than anything else.

    That being said, I've seen cops do some pretty dumb things - er Boston cops, that is, and escape having a collision because other drivers were getting out of their way and very aware of the cop car in a way that they wouldn't be scrutinizing a mundane. Then again, I see non-cops do dumb shit too, and there is sampling bias in that I am more likely to remember cops doing dumb shit than a teenager doing the exact same thing.

    As to your main argument, that I am prejudiced against cops - I am not - at least to the degree you accuse me of being: I've long argued here that there is a wide variety of police forces in the U.S. For example, in my home town, the cops are pretty good, including dragging a defense attorney to talk to me after 3 seconds after they realized I had given them information that was exculpatory to his client while standing outside a courtroom before a magistrate's hearing.

    On the other hand the Medford police, based on personal experience and the conversations I've had with the son of one of their dispatchers, often behave like a street gang, and are to be avoided.

    I don't doubt that there are police forces whose leadership do take a harsh stance on reckless driving amongs their subordinates.

    Then there are incidents like that one in PA where the two girls were killed by a cop going 80 in a 30 zone without his lights or siren where the police tried to put the pin on the girls and 'exonerated' the cop.

    You like to point to the good apples and claim the bad apples are under control. Except they are not.

  • ||

    no, i like to point to STATISTICS, since we all know SOME cops drive recklessly and some cops are shitty drivers.

    the point is that, ON AVERAGE, they are substantially better drivers than a member of the public. the stats don't lie in that regards.

    i apologize if i jumped all over yer shit, but i can tell you from driving a police car, that it does not make other people do smart shit all the time. sure, people are generally conscious not to do blatantly illegal shit WHEN they notice you, but they are also somewhat prone to do very stupid and negligent shit because they are concentrating so hard on trying NOT to look "suspicious" or they slam on the brakes, or they are paying so much attention to watching us in the rear view mirror that...

    we can all agree that SOME cops are craptastic drivers.

    some agencies don't vigorously monitor officer driving

    but the stats show that IF cops drived as badly as the average person, they'd have much higher collision rates

    i've taken my cruiser up to 115 before, and another factor is that as speed increases beyond a certain point, stopping distances etc. increase almost geometrically and it takes a substantially more skilled driver to drive safely at 80 vs 60, for example.

    ime, rookies TEND to drive too fast - both for the conditions AND their skill level. this TENDS to wear off (thankfully) after a few years.

    show me the average cop with 10 yrs on and he is substantially more likely to be a very skilled driver than the average joe

    he also has literally an average of about 5-6 hrs of driving per shift, 5 days a week, 48 weeks a yr, etc.

    iow, they are far more experienced drivers.

    much like big rig drivers (big rigs are much more difficult to drive safelt), they may to some extent get extra leeway from many smart drivers (just like cops), but they als are driving in much more difficult circumstances and STILL manage to be much better drivers, and more safer than the average driver

    iow, they are professional drivers and better than the average dood.

    as are cops

  • ||

    fwiw, i am the first to admit i might be overdefensive and argumentative

    it's a somewhat unavoidable result of the massive trollery and hostility one takes from admitting to a career that instantly puts many reasonoids into hyperfrothirrational mode(tm)

    i may tend to lump some of the REASONable (e.g. you) with the ignorati

    mea culpa and shit

  • ||

    First we must ban idiots from lawmaking.

  • ||

    that's easy in principle

    don't vote for them

    but hard in practice, especially when they are often the only choice

  • Paul||

    Ray LaHood is the custom picture that shows whenever I turn on my GPS.

    Ray Lahood is also an idiot and has proven himself so by not understanding what a minimum speed is for. He should be fired.

  • ||

    “How do I give a blank check signing away the livelihood rights of 1.2 billion members of our population?"

    Immigrating to India just got a non-zero probability.

  • ||

    it's very difficult not to be depressed these days. even when it appears as though we've won a small victory like the above and david cameron unexpectedly showing the finger to the eu this week, i still feel as though the man will 'shapeshift' lol, and come back at us for more. nevertheless, reading the comments posetd here i feel somewhat encouraged. only one 'global warming' 'climate change' disciple felt the urge to air his stupidity so far. the rest it seems, see this baloney for what it is! thank ---- for reason

  • Paul||

    Off topic, but relevant:

    Occupiers step on their own dicks and blow out union support.

    http://www.portlandtribune.com.....1513080600

  • ||

    exactly. as i think, they are their own worst enemy. even given occasional police brutality and sympathetic "stories" like allegedly (fake) pregnant women who miscarry because of evul cop thugz, the more we video and expose OWS , the more they are given freedoms to break the law with impunity ... the freedom to stupid shit, the more support for them drops, as it has - polling data shows

    the peter schiff videos are the tip of the iceberg.

    OWS is like hillary clinton offscript- shrill, completely non-self aware, and prone to fabricate (i was shot at landing in...) and dig deeper and deeper holes for themselves

  • c. togar||

    Where can I find a good discourse on the Libertarian position on climate change?

    I find it difficult to believe that a political/cultural stance based on "reason" would continue to hold fast against overwhelming scientific consensus that this is happening and it is manmade.

    So I assume the issue is more that libertarians feel that any government led solutions would be highly inefficient and would cause more harm than they do good.

    So what is the solution? Do nothing? Wait until business decides its in their best interest to do something? What is the libertarian alternative?

  • ||

    Don't forget that "doing something" is often worse than doing nothing. You must first show that a total government tyranny over everything you do will somehow both 1. reverse global warming and 2. not be worse. Also, as an ancillary, you must also show why we should all be in a panic because some millionaires might lose a beach home and Canada might increase their agricultural output. I'm not sure why this is cause for alarm.

  • ||

    Won't somebody think of the Polynesians!?!?!?!?

  • ||

    Bwahahahahahaha

  • Paul||

    I find it difficult to believe that a political/cultural stance based on "reason"

    DRINK!

  • ||

    overwhelming scientific consensus

    Perhaps we are waiting on overwhelming scientific evidence instead.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    I personally don't find myself needing to be overwhelmed. I think underwhelming scientific evidence is just fine. If you put the probability that human carbon emissions are causing warming at say 70%, and the probability that that warming will cause a great deal of damage at ~30% (to pull numbers completely out of my arse), that's worth paying attention to, right?

  • ||

    Sure. Now mesh that with the times the earth was much warmer before man got here.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Well, the "before man got here" thing is relevant - we do now have coastal cities and civilisations that can be heavily damaged by rising sea levels, as well as inland civilisations that can be damaged by more frequent and dangerous storms (although I don't know how sure you can ever be of the effect of AGW on storm frequency), although I have to say I think the probable damage is generally way overestimated.

  • Juice||

    We've had coastal cities that have withstood rising sea levels for hundreds of years. They're still there, not going anywhere.

  • Venice||

    You sure?

  • Tony||

    Which you feel free to cherry pick, no doubt.

  • ||

    my libertarian position is that if you eliminate govt guaranteed, fractional reserve banking, we won't rely on 'grow at all costs or the economy implodes' economics. the planners of this world want the economic steroids and will take all the credit for the boom, but when the side effects come they don't want to take any of the blame.
    many of the things environmental whackos moan about were created or endorsed by govt. our overdependence on the automobile is a creation of govt. oil companies in the gulf had their liability limited by govt decree.

  • Chinny Chin Chin||

    So what is the solution?

    You posed two possible agencies for the solution (government and business). I suggest that libertarians would pose a third: you.

    Especially in wealthy 1st world countries, individuals have tremendous capability to change their lives to help ameliorate the problem. You can refrain from driving, switch careers to a carbon-negative industry, relocate to an area served by hydro-electric, turn off your computer instead of wasting pixels on this blog...

    After personal changes have been effected, encourage family and friends to act similarly. Use new media to celebrate your and others' accomplishments. Organize boycotts of wasteful companies and petition wasteful public agencies.

    When you have built a track record of success (both personal and in evangelizing), create a non-profit organization with the power to lobby powerful actors on an equals' basis.

    You could start today!

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Well, libertarians vary a lot on this. You're not allowed to damage anyone else's property of person - so some think that taxing carbon emissions (although technically it's fining) carbon emissions is fine. But I think most don't agree with the claim that the market fails to take the long-term into account. The market takes into account whatever the actors in the market take into account. So the alternative isn't 'do nothing' - it's work on new technologies to generate clean energy, walk to work if you can, use low-energy lightbulbs, whatever. I don't know why you're waiting around for business to make that decision for you - businesses, in trying to make a profit, take their cues from the consumer. If you mean "should the government do nothing?" the answer is yes. Please, god, yes.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: c. toga,

    Where can I find a good discourse on the Libertarian position on climate change?

    I find it difficult to believe that a political/cultural stance based on "reason" would continue to hold fast against overwhelming scientific consensus that this is happening and it is manmade.


    There is no consensus that it is man-made. SOME scientists say it is and a lot of scientists trust these findings, but a lot many other scientists do not believe it is man-made or sorely man-made.

    So I assume the issue is more that libertarians feel that any government led solutions would be highly inefficient and would cause more harm than they do good.


    The reason is because governments have a very bad rap regarding solutions of ANY kind.

    So what is the solution? Do nothing?


    Yes.

    Let me explain something: What did people do when the Little Ice Age happened? Get together all and burn all the forests to bring back the warmth?

    What they did was to ADAPT, like we as people have been doing for millenia - ADAPT.

    Wait until business decides its in their best interest to do something?


    Are you an idiot? What does business have to do with this?

  • Tony||

    Just like some scientists say evolution is true, and some say it's not. Who's to say what's right? Why not just teach the controversy?

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    I hope you're not suggesting, Tony, that you only believe in natural selection because scientists told you so.

  • Tony||

    I'm not narcissistic enough to think I could have figured it out on my own without their help. Why do you believe it? Because it doesn't challenge your free market assumptions?

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    No. Okay, first of all, my free market stuff isn't assumed. It's well argued for by people such as Hayek and Mises and Rothbard and reason Magazine. An assumption is a very specific thing: it's what you start out with in an argument, not what you end up with. Secondly, I believe in evolution because of the evidence. No, I didn't discover the evidence myself. And I don't know whether, having the evidence to hand, I would have formed the hypothesis myself. But that doesn't matter. The hypothesis is there now, the question is how do I test it. The best test, it seems to me, is to ask what predictions follow from the hypothesis and then to test those predictions - you know, the scientific method. I didn't need to make the predictions either. It's not my job. But I can review the work in retrospect - if someone says "if natural selection is true then we shouldn't find rabbit fossils in the precambrian layer" I'm going to agree with them. If someone says "if natural selection is true there shouldn't be monkeys anymore" I'm going to disagree and call them an idiot. And behold! there are no rabbit fossils in the precambrian layer and monkeys still exist. As I've explained before, if you feel you're too incompetent or too poorly informed to analyse the evidence yourself, your answer to any scientific question has to be "I don't know, don't ask me", because simply believing what experts believe has no, historically, been a very good indicator of truth - not to mention that deciding who qualifies as an expert is almost as difficult as discovering the truth in the first place. What part of this is narcissistic? The part where I read books, or the part where I trust my own mind as much as I trust other peoples'?

  • Tony||

    So why is climate change different? The basic concept is very simple. Increase the concentration of greenhouse gases, the planet warms, causing changes in climate. If anything it's more intuitively understandable than natural selection.

  • BigT||

    Having 35 years of experience developing alternate energy processes, I can inform you that electric cars produce more GHGs than gasoline vehicles because the e is produced by burning coal. Only a transition to nuclear, wind or solar would significantly reduce GHGs. More importantly, AGW is an over-hyped hypothesis that is very poorly supported by the evidence. I am among 33,000 scientists who have signed the Oregon petition, so don't even begin to talk about consensus, which is of course a non-scientific way of coming to decisions.

  • Tony||

    Link for the terminally incapable of googling simple questions.

  • ||

    I find it difficult to believe that a political/cultural stance based on "reason"

    [Checks clock, uncorks whiskey bottle.]

  • Paul||

    I have to ask, what whiskey you drinkin' that has a cork, and where can I get some?

  • ||

    Corner store... Whats the price ? Fifty twice!

  • FamilyGuy||

    12 yro Balvenie Doublewood

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Smirnoff martini. Shaken. Two olives, on one of those little plastic swords.

  • ||

    Knob Creek!

  • db||

    *Thinks about cracking a bottle of Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale post-workout*

  • ||

    not a bad idea. i know bodybuilders who are successful who do this

    it's a vasodilator, it helps you relax and wind down post workout, helps lower cortisol levels, etc

    a guinness and a can of tuna is awesome post workout

  • ||

    I'm already an Indophile, Durban reinforces it. Namaste.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement