Climate Change

Why Brute Force Will be Necessary to Avert "Climate Catastrophe"

Sweet talk at Paris can't eliminate the Sophie's Choice that the world faces

|

The upcoming Paris negotiations are supposed to be the mother of all climate change negotiations when the whole

Global Warming
John Englart (Takver) / Foter / CC BY-SA

world will "voluntarily" commit to binding emission cuts to once and for all avert climate catastrophe. But the prelude to the talks last week in Bonn shows why solutions to this problem won't be that simple — or that "voluntary." The West and developing countries are profoundly at odds about who bears primary responsibility for causing global warming and who should therefore pay for shouldering it. Indeed, 130 developing countries led by India and China almost walked out in protest after it became clear that the draft Bonn action plan that is supposed to serve as the blueprint for the Paris negotiations had omitted their most important conditions about the "fairness and financing" of the final deal.

Soothing overtures by the Obama administration might have calmed matters for now. But that doesn't mean that the Sophie's Choice at the heart of mitigation efforts about which lives in which countries matter more has disappeared.

Regardless of the outcome in Paris, if the world ever gets serious about enforcing emission cuts, I note in my column in The Week this morning, things will get ugly:

When there is abundant wealth to solve a problem, moral accounting matters less. Whoever has the means will often step forward without caring too much about responsibility or returns. That clearly is not the case with global warming. The stakes are high for everyone so each side will vehemently assert the morality of its position. But the one most likely to prevail is not necessarily the one with superior claims, but superior force. Might, after all, makes right.

Go here to read the whole thing.

NEXT: Consumers Need More Options, Not Fewer

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.

  1. Oh Shikha I’m so sorry about what everyone said below.

    1. I’M NOT.

    2. HM is a precog for the HyR comments. His accuracy in this case is 100%….

    3. Shikha only reads the H&R comments when in the presence of a trained emotional health professional to whisper words of encouragement, to counteract all the meanies.

      1. You mean Butters?

        1. ha ha I do see some parallels.

  2. Choir, read this:
    “The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-first Century”
    Won’t take long and there isn’t a neo-Malthusian who escapes Bailey’s (entirely too kind) pen.

    1. Yes. Good book. However, it will not persuade any committed greenies. Nothing will.

      1. Agreed. But it will give you ammo when some watermelon starts spouting off.

  3. Started to read an article yesterday about some professor who could barely get out of bed each day to go teach, what with the angst and burden of knowing – KNOWING – that teh climut chaynj is out there, waiting. Well, NOT waiting.

    I was going to post it here today, but I like you all too much. Even the trolls shouldn’t be exposed to that derp. Not even Depretoligist.

    Literally made it about to paragraphs in and then had to bail.

    “I can barely function because I’m so askeert of teh weather!111!!!!” Fuck off pussy….

    1. Post it!

      1. Almanian is posting his comments from bed because he can’t muster the strength to get up in the morning knowing what he knows that professor knows. Do you want to be bedridden, too? He’s bearing the burden for all of us.

      2. http://www.ozy.com/fast-forwar…..feel/62757

        I’m posting this for SugarFree.

        AND FOR FREEEEEEEEEEEEDUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMB!!!!

        1. She might go for a run to release the pent-up anxiety. Sometimes she cries. Or she’ll commiserate with colleagues, sharing in and validating each other’s angst. What keeps Terry up at night aren’t the usual ailments; it’s not a tyrant boss or broken heart.

          The diagnosis: global warming.

          “Oh…..my…..GOD! She’s got….teh Global Warmings!!!”

          1. Add it to the list of things climate change can do. Or maybe, subtract it from the shorter list of things climate change can’t do.

          2. No, what she has is a bad case of the fruitcakes.

            Lo and behold, another lefty turns out to be a complete nutcase.

            The woman is having a nervous breakdown about something that is objectively and verifiably not true.

          3. Are those The Hot Flashes?

        2. Excelsior!

        3. And – sorry – she’s a “Fellow”, which I conflated with “Perfesser”. Whatever.

          1. And – sorry – she’s a “Fellow”, which I conflated with “Perfesser”. Whatever.

            She’s whichever he feels is correct at any given moment confronted with a restroom choice.

            1. Well, sometimes my BS identifies as a PhD

              I use the pronoun Dr.

        4. pretraumatic stress disorder

          Oh, my… bring me my fainting couch!

          1. I….I….I CAN’T! I’m too weak from crying….

            *sobs uncontrollably*

            God, I hate people…

        5. Indeed, emotions are a powerful tool for those who know how to use them. Which is why those leading the climate-change charge aren’t looking to labs anymore. Instead, eager students are following Cornelius’s path, pursuing studies in contemplative environmentalism or transformational ecology, which looks to shrinks, money and Facebook to protect the planet. With the future of everything at stake, what has traditionally separated science from sentiment is a lot less defined ? and perhaps even irrelevant.

          FSM please save us from ourselves.

          1. which looks to shrinks, money and Facebook to protect the planet

            I mean, that’s nearly guaranteed success – like shooting fish in a barrel! If that were ecologocilly sound, of course…which I’m sure it’s not….

            *starts to cry, thinking of the dead fish sleeping with the other fishes*

            1. contemplative environmentalism or transformational ecology

              That’s guaranteed to generate tuition fees for worthless degrees!

              *starts planning online course offering*

              1. What I see there is the abandonment of traditional science because it doesn’t support their bullshit assertions. If facts are no good then they have to go with the feeeeelz.

                It is basically an admission that they are wrong, were wrong all along, and intend to stay that way.

        6. The soft-spoken brunette first began thinking about this impasse after some years back she hosted a community workshop on emerging “stay or go” science that weighs whether home owners can ? and should ? protect their property from increasingly frequent and ferocious wildfires. Her audience was a small northern California community that had recently faced that very dilemma. Fear, anger and helplessness pulsed through the room. “I started to feel their anxiety,” Kearns says. “Our research has an effect on people’s lives. My scientific training hadn’t prepared me to cope with the emotions that come with that.”

          What’s the problem? You tell them the facts and get on with it. Is a moral judgement required? What is wrong with these people?

          1. You tell them the facts

            Such as: “Don’t sweat it – the rest of the country will pay for you to rebuild every time your house burns down.”

        7. Pretraumatic stress disorder.

          Just think about that for a minute.

    2. POST IT, PUSSY

      1. …see what Fist said….

        *cough…COUGH…falls back in bed**

          1. Ah – I couldn’t make it past the douchenozzle Subafuckingru ad. Fuck Subaru.

            1. Adblock?

              1. Can’t – I’m fucking off at work 🙁 IT won’t allow it.

                So I get back at them by wasting time coming to HyR….

                THAT’LL LEARN ‘EM!

            2. That’s a lot of hate for a… car company.

              1. Well, I’m in the auto bidness, and they are one of the enemy.

                FEAR MY WRATH, COMPETITORS!!!!

  4. When government uses brute force to coerce its citizens into doing something, then the citizens do it voluntarily. After all, government is us and we are government, so whatever government coerces us into doing must be voluntary since we can’t coerce ourselves.

    At least that’s what Tony told me.

    1. That’s what Comrade Bernie said, but strangely, it stops applying when government does something he doesn’t like.

    2. If you didn’t want to do it, then why did you sign that social contract (in blood, I presume) the moment you were born?

      1. Or 9 months earlier.

  5. about which lives in which countries matter more

    Ugh. Attempt at reference to other contemporary social-justice issue = coded racism. Point of article dismissed forthwith.

    1. With extreme prejudice?

      1. Um, prejudice is BAD straffinrun, mmmkay?

  6. The tragedy of current efforts to combat global warming is that in order to avert a tragedy they’ll cause one.

    No the tragedy is that in order to indulge in a millennialist fantasy, they’ll cause a tragedy.

    Maybe Dalmia is just trolling here. It is hard to tell. There is, however, no way in hell the western world is going to go to war to enforce carbon emission standards. That is an insanity beyond even our capability.

    What is going to happen is nothing. Smart countries will just ignore this bullshit and dumb ones will follow it until the lights go off and reality teaches them differently.

    1. There is, however, no way in hell the western world is going to go to war to enforce carbon emission standards. That is an insanity beyond even our capability.

      I don’t know about that. If complying with carbon standards causes the western world’s economy to tank while those who ignore standards flourish, then western countries will be faced with a choice of abandoning those standards or going to war. Unfortunately, being that western governments aren’t good at admitting mistakes, I do think there’s a good chance they’d choose war rather than admitting to those policies being a failure.

      1. I don’t know about war war, but I wouldn’t rule out a few drone strikes to make other countries tow the lion.

    2. Smart countries will just ignore this bullshit and dumb ones will follow it until the lights go off and reality teaches them differently.

      Better start charging the Prius now

    3. John,

      I can’t find the thread where you posted it, so I’ll say this here.

      Thanks for the link to the CS Lewis lectures. I’ve been raptly listening all morning.

      1. Aren’t they amazing? And whoever it was at the BBC that came up with the idea of the doodles was brilliant. People talk about Orwell being a great essayist, and he was, but Lewis was even better and better by a long shot.

      2. And thanks for reminding me that I wanted to check those out.

      3. I will second what tarran said.

        My introduction to CS Lewis was Mere Christianity given to me by a friend thirty years ago who wanted to convert me. It was AWFUL. Not proggie level logic, but bad nonetheless.

        Unfortunately I dismissed him based on that and I am just now getting around to reading his other works.

      4. As I missed the previous post, is there a link?

    4. There must be a word for the rhetorical technique of conceding a point of your opponent’s so you can make your larger point. Sort of like a dilemma, I guess. Or she’s being dumb or trolling.

      1. Reductio Ad Absurdum. And maybe that is what she is doing here. I honestly can’t tell.

        1. I guess that works.

    5. The West has nuclear weapons.

      1. The use of which in large numbers would cause a nuclear winter and ironically enough really would cause a climate catastrophe.

    6. Have you been paying attention for the last 8 years John?

      The unmitigated bullshit that has come out of our president’s mouth, the insanity he has embarked on, and the evil moron was elected twice.

      The lights have gone out already in Scotland and parts of Limeyland and yet they are just AGWing harder. Old people freeze to death because they have no power and their answer is to build more windmills.

      You think they won’t do it? They will.

      *if there is something too stupid or counterproductive to consider realistic, it is a certainty that government will do it.

  7. Oh, yes. Foreign aid has such a great track record.

    1. Yes, if one is the head of the country receiving said aid.

      1. “Tell me about it!” – Baby Doc

  8. CAGW is the excuse that will be used to implement worldwide government. At least we will get to see the looks of horror on proggie faces when their plans don’t turn out as they expected.

    1. CAGW is the excuse that will be used to implement worldwide government.

      “You just go on thinking that…..” – The Masons?

    2. At least we will get to see the looks of horror on proggie faces when their plans don’t turn out as they expected.

      You really think they won’t end up loving whatever tyrants they put in place?

      1. If only Stalin was aware of this injustice…

        1. That’s Comrade Stalin, goddammit.

    3. Cool, then we can finally join The Federation.

  9. I say developing countries should take all the emissions cuts. First world nations know nothing but luxury now, but those third worlders are unaccustomed to a convenience-based society so they won’t miss it. Fair is fair.

    1. The position of Secretary of State is still open in the 2016 Almanian for President cabinet. I find your ideas intriguing, and – in addition to subscribing to any newsletters you may publish – I’d like to ask you to join Team Almanian.

      “We Probably Won’t Make It Any Worse”

  10. Pay the Don to participate in the market. Pay the Don to live in the correct weather. What’s the difference? PAY or else.

    1. I could do this for you as a favor, CYP. But to NOT pay? This is asking too much…. – The Don

  11. So Shikha is an AGW hysteric.
    Why am I not surprised.

    1. I can’t figure it out. Is she trolling and just illustrating where the AGW nuts’ logic leads or does she actually believe this shit?

      1. I think some of you are so used to being hard on her that you’re misreading it. To me, it clearly reads as a negative portrayal of where their logic is going to take us.

        1. To me, it clearly reads as a negative portrayal of where their logic is going to take us.

          Agreed.

          But Yokels gonna yokel.

          1. I guess the fact that I said three different times it could be that she is just taking their logic to its conclusion, didn’t penetrate your thick skull.

            Illiterate has got to illiterate.

        2. Thats what I got too.

        3. Ditto. There’s not really anything inflammatory in the original article beyond a very soft belief that AGW is real. And that shouldn’t be so inflammatory. “An AGW hysteric”? Seriously? You can get that from the article? What I mostly got out of it was that, not surprisingly, when there’s a “crisis”, a whole lot of people use to say “…and therefore you should give us money” and throw a tantrum when they don’t get it.

        4. I agree. Although, I did overhear Shikha say “Global Warming is the same as Adam Lanza…”

  12. Why Brute Force Will be Necessary to Avert “Climate Catastrophe”

    What other method is available to them?

    1. The scientific one? Oh, wait. Forgot who we’re talking about.

      1. Read up in the thread. They are openly abandoning that.

    2. In my opinion of the things that could avert a “climate catastrophe” brute force is by far the worst and most useless approach.

      But of course for Progressives, brute force is what they want to do. Climate Change is just the excuse.

  13. “Regardless of the outcome in Paris, if the world ever gets serious about enforcing emission cuts, I note in my column in The Week this morning, things will get ugly:”

    A bit too pessimistic. Westerners have shown again and again that presented with a frightening threat, they are willing to sacrifice. Appeasing the poor of the world, especially if the poor are thought to be a threat is the obvious solution.

    1. What if “the poor” have nothing to do with this, and its just third world tinpot politicians trying to get their palms greased?

      1. “What if “the poor” have nothing to do with this, and its just third world tinpot politicians trying to get their palms greased?”

        That makes things even easier. Westerners have a long tradition of appeasing these tinpot dictators. It’s “the poor” who are more of an unknown, unpredictable quality.

    2. And those Westerners who disagree will be dealt with appropriately.

      1. “And those Westerners who disagree will be dealt with appropriately.”

        They will be ignored or marginalized. That shouldn’t surprise you. If disagreeing Westerners are hoping to suffer some more dramatic fate, like being sent to prison over their dissenting views, they’re probably in for a disappointment.

        1. I’ll be ignored for not paying my carbon tax? Sweet!!

          1. “I’ll be ignored for not paying my carbon tax?”

            Not quite. Ignored for disagreeing with carbon tax. Want to sacrifice more? The sky’s the limit.

    3. they Top Men are willing to sacrifice the proles

      1. they Top Men are willing to sacrifice the proles

        If conditions are right, the proles will willingly sacrifice themselves. Same goes for the Top Men, at least those who are not sociopaths.

  14. Wait… China is expecting to be paid off? They’re arguing that western countries were polluting too much, and China shouldn’t need to contribute?

    This deal is getting more farcical all the time.

    1. “This deal is getting more farcical all the time.”

      Just wait until you realize the joke’s on you.

      1. It’s trueman; he’s here to see his name someplace other than his lame blog.
        If you think you’re engaging a sentient human, well:
        mtrueman|5.4.15 @ 12:59AM|#
        “[?] What you haven’t fathomed is that I’m so morally depraved that my deserved rep here doesn’t bother me or interest me in the least. I post for myself; your feelings about me are of no concern.

        1. I know. My responses to him above are for my own amusement.

    2. This deal is getting more farcical all the time.

      Surely you didn’t think this whole exercise was anything more than (another) attempt to shake down the West?

  15. The West and developing countries are profoundly at odds about who bears primary responsibility for causing global warming and who should therefore pay for shouldering it.

    A question that is just as loaded (and therefore an exercise in obfuscation) as asking who is responsible for overpopulation, which is another made-up problem.

  16. Turn out those lights or I’ll call the Brute Squad

    1. Relax, Warty is with the Brute Squad.

      1. Warty IS the Brute Squad.

        1. I read this as “warty is the Brute Squat

          Which I think is really what’s going on here.

    2. I am the Brute Squad.

  17. Soothing overtures by the Obama administration might have calmed matters for now.

    And what would those be – promises to sell his own country down the river?

  18. We can simply nuke the Third World if necessary.

    1. “We can simply nuke the Third World if necessary.”

      Why wait until it’s necessary? We could do it today just for the fun of it.

    2. “We can simply nuke the Third World if necessary.”

      Why wait until it’s necessary? We could do it today just for the fun of it.

  19. If anyone was serious about lowering CO2 emissions, they would be calling for new nuclear power. Sure it’s more expensive than carbon fuels, but it’s reliable, dispatchable, abundant, energy dense, and, most importantly, here now. Electrifying HVAC using GSHP or even ASHP in many locations would free up plenty of emissions for transport and even industry.

    The fact that they instead call for 1000 year old technology and extortion payments tells you everything you need to know.

    1. “If anyone was serious about lowering CO2 emissions,”

      Not everyone is as enamoured of the command economy as you are.

      1. Projection, it’s not just for breakfast!!

        1. Fission: the breakfast of collectivists.

          1. As opposed to solar and wind? How much land do I need to confiscate for that?

            Why are the CAGW people always the ‘special’ kids in the room?

            And you will note that the very first word I used was ‘if.’

            1. Why are the CAGW people always the ‘special’ kids in the room?

              It’s the burning ambition of little minds to experience the respect and deference given to big minds.

            2. “As opposed to solar and wind? How much land do I need to confiscate for that?”

              Are you trying to say that you need to confiscate only a little bit of my land for your nuclear power plants? You’re not persuading me.

    2. Re: NotAnotherSkippy,

      If anyone was serious about lowering CO2 emissions, they would be calling for new nuclear power.

      Those who say they want to lower CO2 emissions are not really serious about lowering CO2 emissions but of curtailing growth and imposing socialism on all.

      Socialists are schizophrenic when it comes to their own ideology: they promise a greater prosperity under socialism for everybody while, at the same time, railing against “excessive” consumption. Exactly what kind of prosperity they’re peddling becomes a sudden mystery when one is confronted by that obvious contradiction, but the fact is that socialists are, in reality, talking about justifying the misery they know exists under a socialist regime by making a moral case for ASCETICISM.

      1. The Left never left the 3rd grade playground.

      2. Curtailing growth will lower emissions, whether or not you are serious about it. Intentions can be important, but they don’t help you here.

        1. Re: mtrueman,

          Curtailing growth will lower emissions, whether or not you are serious about it.

          Alas, that is not necessarily true, M.

          You can have almost zero emissions and economic growth, if societies go full-nuclear energy. The US has been able to reduce CO2 emissions by burning more Nat Gas. The socialists are not interested in that – see Germany, and their war on rational use of energy, the war on frakking, etc.

          The Marxians are NOT interested in your well-being, M. Get a grip on reality for once.

          1. “You can have almost zero emissions and economic growth, if societies go full-nuclear energy.”

            But that’s never going to happen, is it?

            1. The main thing standing in the way are the very same activists decrying climate change.

              1. “The main thing standing ”

                You have any idea how much it would cost if the world were to go full nuclear?

                1. NAS, you’re wasting time. Truman is here to see his name someplace other than his pathetic blog:
                  mtrueman|5.4.15 @ 12:59AM|#
                  “[?] What you haven’t fathomed is that I’m so morally depraved that my deserved rep here doesn’t bother me or interest me in the least. I post for myself; your feelings about me are of no concern.

  20. Shikha’s article is no mere trolling but a call to readers to reality when thinking about the real consequences of enforcement mechanisms that governments, acting together, could come up with just to assure some sort of compliance, which are the kind of enforcement mechanisms that have led to war in the past – remember the Treaty of Versailles?

    1. “which are the kind of enforcement mechanisms that have led to war in the past – remember the Treaty of Versailles?”

      What kind of enforcement mechanism do you have in mind? As far as I know, your example of the Versailles treaty doesn’t fit. Its articles were not enforced and not even a pretence of enforcement was made.

      1. Its articles were not enforced and not even a pretence of enforcement was made.

        ROFL! Oh yes, the French totally didn’t occupy the Ruhr in 1925 to punish Germany for falling behind on its reparation payments.

        I see you are bringing the same rigorous know-nothingism you brought to a discussion about the Khmer Rouge’s policies to this discussion.

        1. “Oh yes, the French totally didn’t occupy the Ruhr in 1925 to punish Germany for falling behind on its reparation payments.”

          The German payments kept falling more and more behind. These enforcement mechanisms didn’t enforce anything.

          I didn’t know you had anything to offer re the history of Cambodia. What can you add that is of interest?

          1. And so the desperate twisting and goal post shifting begins.

            Sorry, markie-mark; you’re neither interesting nor informative, so I’m not going to play with you today.

            1. ” so I’m not going to play with you today.”

              I’m satisfied as long as you continue to read me and take what I write to heart. I’m sure you’ll find some other lucky guy to play with.

      2. Re: mtrueman,

        What kind of enforcement mechanism do you have in mind?

        The same kind of enforcement mechanisms imposed on vanquished foes, m.

  21. I’m thinking Shikha isn’t necessarily calling for war to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, just pointing out that’s what it would take.

    Now, whether she is actually bought into the CAGW lunacy, I couldn’t say.

    1. By her careful omission of the subject, I assume that she doesn’t buy into the lunacy, but doesn’t want to be rejected as a holocaust denier by the know-nothings, and so keeps quiet.

  22. Look, the next tipping point will finally do something really awful. I’m sure of it.

  23. “Why Brute Force Will be Necessary to Avert “Climate Catastrophe””

    Because the ‘Climate Catastrophe’ is 90% hogwash, conceived from some distant possibilities to make using brute force to control people who won’t do as their ‘betters’ tell them politically palatable.

    There MAY be global warming. It MAY be affected by human action. It MAY be a bad thing. None of these are proven, or even proven likely. And, furthermore, anyone who has actually examined the facts on the ground knows this. Which makes the people pushing the Climate Change agenda either scoundrels or fools.

    I would rather live in a world where the icecaps have melted than put up with the collectivist authoritarian crap peddled by the “climate change’ pimps. Fortunately, it is unlikely that I will actually have to make that choice.

  24. Start with a shitty premise:

    “The West and developing countries are profoundly at odds about who bears primary responsibility for causing global warming”

    Arrive at a shitty conclusion:

    ” But that doesn’t mean that the Sophie’s Choice at the heart of mitigation efforts about which lives in which countries matter more has disappeared.”

  25. All that talk about Brute Force is going to give the left a serious boner.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.