The case for climate divestment in one sentence
Investors in fossil fuel companies make profits by imposing climate change on the world's most vulnerable, and on everyone else.
Saturday, November 09, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Eli meant to behave but there were way too many options.
KoFi Button
Posts
Contributors
Eli Rabett
Eli Rabett, a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny who finally handed in the keys and retired from his wanna be research university. The students continue to be naive but great people and the administrators continue to vary day-to-day between homicidal and delusional without Eli's help. Eli notices from recent political developments that this behavior is not limited to administrators. His colleagues retain their curious inability to see the holes that they dig for themselves. Prof. Rabett is thankful that they, or at least some of them occasionally heeded his pointing out the implications of the various enthusiasms that rattle around the department and school. Ms. Rabett is thankful that Prof. Rabett occasionally heeds her pointing out that he is nuts.
Brian's Other Blog
On Line Textbooks
- Atmospheric Chemistry - Daniel Jacob
- Environmental Geosciences - Robert Stewart
- Ray Pierrehumbert on the physics of climate
- David Archer's Global Warming (Parts)
- Spencer Weart's Disovery of Global Warming
- Stratospheric Ozone
- Global Land Vegetation
- Polar Sea Ice
- Sea Surface Temperatures
- Skeptical Science - not a book but a resource
Mostly Science
- And Then There's Physics
- Blue Skies Research - J&J in the UK
- Bob Grumbine in the 21st Century
- Easterbrook's Serendipity
- Izen or Izen it not?
- James' Empty Blog
- Neven's Artic Sea Ice Blog
- Nick Stoke's Moyhu
- Real Climate
- Science of Doom
- Simon Donner's Maribo II
- Tamino's Open Mind
- The Weasel, aka Stoat
- Victor Venema
- Weather from Bridford, Devon, a beautiful corner of the world
Mostly Climate Policy
Other Lands
Southerners
Cuter in Bunny Ears
Blog Archive
-
▼
2013
(420)
-
▼
November
(36)
- If you have too much time on your hands
- Using Nanothermite to Blow Up Denialism
- Updating your priors after the Iran deal - no one'...
- The Vanishing Bio-Diaper
- Dueling policy tips II: tips for scientific and o...
- Dueling policy tips: selected tips for policy-mak...
- Whitehouse Monday
- Eli and the Weasel
- Eli Has A Journal To Sell You
- Aaugh
- $200 million hydrogen highway probably won't work ...
- The Poor Spit Back on the Rich
- Adaptation For Those That Can Afford It
- Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse on the Costs of Climate Ch...
- Don't trust civil war predictions. Including mine.
- Pics and video from last week
- Saturday Night Is For Snuggling
- Miscellaneous Debris, or the AR5 Estimates of SLR
- Roger Pielke Sr. Was Right
- A Short Note From Dano and Some Comments From Eli
- Narderev Sano at the Warsaw Conference
- Keith Kloor Does Jellyfish
- Republican politicians are soft on crime
- Places to Donate for Haiyan Relief
- Does the World Need a Category Six For Cyclones
- Three words missing from the Caldeira/Emanuel/Hans...
- The Good Life
- Your friendly water district lobbyist, reporting out
- The case for climate divestment in one sentence
- Extremely Cross Cultural
- The Better Tasting Jellyfish Appetizer
- Sufficient For a Thousand Losses
- While Eli Freely Giggles
- Pulling Teeth
- Cuccinelli fights off stench of doom
- Jonathan Chait Is Wrong
-
▼
November
(36)
Nil Nisi
- A Few Things Illconsidered
- Arthur Smith
- Atmoz
- Capital Climate
- Chris Colose
- Climate Physics Forum
- Cruel Mistress
- Deep Climate
- Delayed Oscillator
- Deltoid
- Denis Delbecq
- Fergus Brown's Old Man
- Greenfyre
- Horatio's Muse
- John Nielsen-Gammon
- Lab Lemming
- Logical Science
- Magnus Westerstrand
- N3xus 6
- Policy Lass
- Post Normal Times
- Rick Piltze
- Some Are Boojums
- Throbgoblin
38 comments:
And those fossil fuel companies appreciate you and other water district employees flying to DC every year. Never heard of video conferencing? I mean why are you contributing to the destruction of the planet?
Do as I say, not as I do.
1
And, you, #1, enjoy free riding on everyone elses back.
The trap is that you're told you have no right to advocate for change unless you live in a cave and eat roots, and then as to the few people who get close to blameless, they're discounted as just being weird hippies.
FWIW, I discussed video conferencing there and they still felt it was valuable to come in person. Travel emissions are part of our accounting when we aim for carbon neutrality.
And yes, I think those of us who take climate seriously should try and reduce our footprints, although not so much as to handicap our fight against fossil fuel industries.
I see. You may contribute to the success and profits of the evil fossil fuel companies, because you are on the right side of a cause? Is that your position?
I just find it odd that those who claim to be saving the planet from CO2 and fossil fuel companies are the ones with the highest usage.
In today's world of communication technology, flying everyone to the same physical location is an excessive waste.
To Eli, how do you get so many things wrong? I free ride? No that is Brian speaking of evil fossil fuel companies. The way Brian speaks anyone who invests or uses products from fossil fuel companies is evil and is helping destroy the planet. Brian is excepted though, for one he is trying to save the world and for two the taxpayer pays his fuels costs to fly to DC.
In the end the facts remain, Brian has contributed more to CO2/AGW problem than I have.
1
Anonymous n, again.
http://www.newgeography.com/content/004013-fixing-california-the-green-gentry-s-class-warfare
FIXING CALIFORNIA: THE GREEN GENTRY’S CLASS WARFARE
" Historically, progressives were seen as partisans for the people, eager to help the working and middle classes achieve upward mobility even at expense of the ultra rich. But in California, and much of the country, progressivism has morphed into a political movement that, more often than not, effectively squelches the aspirations of the majority, in large part to serve the interests of the wealthiest. "
" Primarily, this modern-day program of class warfare is carried out under the banner of green politics. The environmental movement has always been primarily dominated by the wealthy, and overwhelmingly white, donors and activists. But in the past, early progressives focused on such useful things as public parks and open space that enhance the lives of the middle and working classes. Today, green politics seem to be focused primarily on making life worse for these same people. "
[Bold by Ed.]
@anonymous
Get some original thoughts dunderhead. The whole green conspiracy thing is so boring.
Anonymous said,"I just find it odd that those who claim to be saving the planet from CO2 and fossil fuel companies are the ones with the highest usage."
Wow, talk about omniscient.
AT1, You have certainly contributed less intelligent thought to the world than Brian--indeed less than anyone else I know of. However, intelligent thought does not equate to carbon footprint.
Green gentry is yet another contradiction and trap by anti-environmentalists. They make the argument, and when you prove them wrong they say you're watermelon socialists.
For example, Gore's proposal from many years back was to replace payroll taxes with a carbon tax. This would have been a very progressive and pro-free market proposal, because wealthier people tend to use more carbon and people wouldn't be punished for working.
Obama's proposed cap-and-trade and California's actual cap-and-trade both have equitable dividend components that provide equivalent financial rewards to people regardless of usage levels, paid for from carbon auctions. Because wealthier people use more carbon, they effect is progressive.
Expect all this just to be used to claim enviros are socialists. I'm sure the same people state both contradictory arguments, and believe them both.
AT1: "In the end the facts remain, Brian has contributed more to CO2/AGW problem than I have."
AT1, with habitual high dudgeon, is here to deliver banal lukewarmer tripe propped up by unverifiable "facts".
Loud and clear from AT1: "I'm not giving up carbon-fueled comfort and convenience unless everyone else does first."
Once again, our childish troll demonstrates just what kind of person (putatively, albeit of indeterminate gender) it is. Keep it coming, AT1!
He may be green gentry, but Jackson Browne isn't fooled by greenwash:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8efB93davlk
"Do people really spend millions upon millions/To make us think we care about the planet?
At the same time polluting and looting the only world we've got/
So they can maximize their profit?
People do!"
Brian says 'The trap is that you're told you have no right to advocate for change unless you live in a cave and eat roots"
Perhaps there is an invisible comment above that I am missing, but did someone actually say that?
Or perhaps that is really just the same thing as criticizing someone for flying when teleconferencing technology exists
I knew I should have taken that PSL ("Politics as a Second Language") class when they offered it at the local community college.
"Loud and clear from AT1: "I'm not giving up carbon-fueled comfort and convenience unless everyone else does first."
Wrong Mal, as usual. I have restructured the way our group does business trips, we don't. We video conference. Our travel expenses are down 60% in the last five years.
We have also migrated some of the workforce to work from home. Does not work with everyone, but it does cut down on a lot of commuting travel.
And all I do is encourage people to do the same and I skip all the "corporations are evil" BS.
I find water district people flying from all over the country to DC a waste. I find quite surprising with all the preaching coming from those who travel so excessively.
You don't know jack.
1
AT1,
While I applaud your efforts to reduce your company's carbon footprint, I would contend that they are not in and of themselves a solution to the problem we face. Some business cannot be conducted except face to face, and there is not a substitute for the scientific conference that yields the same synergy and serendipity of interaction.
What is needed is a new viable energy infrastructure. Whichever country gets there first will be a very big winner.
Since Eli lives in a burrow and eats tasty roots, perhaps he might have a word here.
There is no one thing that is right for everything. While video conferencing cover some of the bases, it is not a super weapon. Among the things it is least useful for are asymmetric relationships, esp. if you are not on the top of the pile, e.g. among other things, lobbying and selling heavy iron, because the people on the top want a personal tip of the hat. Just is.
Actually, both things are required: we need a new (non fossil fuel based) infrastructure but we also need to reduce the amount of energy we use and the first actually depends on the second.
It's obviously not enough by itself, but what 1 is talking about (videoconferencing instead of business trips) is certainly an important part of that.
Maybe it can't work in all cases, but that does not change the fact that it makes a very big difference if people are vidoeconferencing rather than flying around hither and thither, particularly considering the numbers involved.
Criticisms such as 1's are quite legitimate and when the folks who claim to support positive change attempt to dismiss the criticisms by equating calls for videoconferencing with calls to "live in caves and eat roots", one really has to wonder (and not about those leveling the criticism)
"there is not a substitute for the scientific conference that yields the same synergy and serendipity of interaction.'
Perhaps, but a large part of what happens (paper and poster presentations) is actually quite well suited to the interactive videoconferencing that is currently available.
And one could make the same "there is no substitute" about many types of conferences and other meetings.
Though Chauncey Gardiner would undoubtedly dispute it, a video-conference may not be a "substitute" for "being there" , but, like it or not, it's pretty clear that people are going to have to change their behaviors if we are going to have ANY chance of weaning ourselves off fossil fuels.
Without a doubt, people will have to work out new ways of doing things that achieve the same ends and possibly make sacrifices.
It's too easy to say "vidoeconferencing will work for those other folks but not for us (scientists, lobbyists, etc)".
And "Just is" is not the same as "Just must be".
Never has been. Never will be.
To our friendly literalists: yes, video and phone conferencing are great tools that can cut carbon footprints, but they don't always do the job.
And Eli's right that you have to look at contexts. I think they're probably most useful in incremental-type meetings: ongoing project is moving from Step 3 to Step 4 and needs a meeting. Perfect for that context. Trying to make a sales pitch to a regulator, or asking a congressional representative to put your concern higher on the priority list, and the more personal touch can be very important.
I should say I'm not even 100% convinced it's worth the carbon or the cost, but it is a reasonable argument.
I actually do a great deal of videoconferencing, teleconferencing and virtual meetings. They work great for some purposes, but not all. Sometimes, though, you need to meet your colleagues face to face, and if you cannot, or if your colleagues are restricted by geography, then something is lost to the scientific enterprise. There is a reason why the Bohr-Einstein debate did not take place via the "Solvay Letters".
Which one is Brian, Bohr or Einstein?
"I should say I'm not even 100% convinced it's worth the carbon or the cost, but it is a reasonable argument."
It's not, especially with your mindset. You want bigger titles, more influence and more political power. You are not on a mission to save anything, that is your cover. I am just sorry everyone else is blind to this.
1
Bohr, he was a lot better looking and polite. Einstein, otoh knew how to tell you to screw off. Of course they were both smart
Niels Boor sure argued a lot for a polite fellow.
AT1: "And all I do is encourage people to do the same and I skip all the 'corporations are evil' BS."
It's as if our truculent troll is unaware of the Tragedy of the Commons. Or that corporations externalize every cost they can get away with, not because they're evil but because they can't compete otherwise; and if they're publicly held, because they're required to by law.
I guess Mal has never worked for a large corporation where not every business expense is approved by the CEO.
I see you took all three levels of ignorance during your "education".
1
AT1: "I have restructured the way our group does business trips, we don't. We video conference. Our travel expenses are down 60% in the last five years."
OK, let's pretend that someone with the infantile manners you've displayed here would have that much influence in any group but a claque of middle-school misfits. So your travel expenses are down 60%. Unless you're incurring opportunity cost greater than what you're saving by not traveling, you're only doing what any business needs to do to compete.
AT1: "I guess Mal has never worked for a large corporation where not every business expense is approved by the CEO."
You don't know jack, but never mind. Again, pretending to believe anyone would employ you: if you're actually internalizing more cost than you're saving, it's obvious your CEO isn't paying attention. If your company was public, I'd short it.
"Unless you're incurring opportunity cost greater than what you're saving by not traveling, you're only doing what any business needs to do to compete."
Duh.
"..if you're actually internalizing more cost than you're saving..."
Yes we decided to take action and lower our carbon footprint via less travel and increase the costs of our department by choosing an option with the greatest opportunity cost. Genius.
Guess what Mal. We lowered out carbon footprint, lowered costs, increased productivity and employees are happier not flying around so often.
I know it is hard for you to believe the genesis for this was "hey can we reduce our carbon footprint by reducing travel? How? Well we could....".
In the end who really cares what Mal thinks, especially when others are actually acting and being productive, well not here but...
Send some more tax dollars to Brian so he can fly from northern California to Washington DC to grease some more politicians and enrich the evil oil companies at the same time.
1
"Which one is Brian, Bohr or Einstein?"
I've been called a Bohr, although I'm not sure if that's how they spelled it.
Anyway I thought I'd point out that the original post is about climate divestment. The thread started with the implication that you can't favor climate divestment and use fossil fuels at the same time, which is pretty silly but at least topical. Then it became a discussion over whether teleconferencing should substitute 100% of the time for travel, a claim made by someone who should be applauded for making the substitution 60% of the time. That's an interesting concept but not very related to the blog post.
People can say what they want, but comments on divestment would be welcome as well.
AT1: "Yes we decided to take action and lower our carbon footprint via less travel and increase the costs of our department by choosing an option with the greatest opportunity cost. Genius."
Poor AT1, always over its head here. If AGW is to be forestalled, the world must be persuaded to internalize the climate cost of fossil-fuel consumption, and AT1 personifies the challenge confronting us:
"It's not getting any smarter out there. You have to come to terms with stupidity, and make it work for you." (Frank Zappa).
"AT1, always over its head here. If AGW is to be forestalled, the world must be persuaded to internalize the climate cost of fossil-fuel consumption, and AT1 personifies the challenge confronting us:"
Says you. Proof please?
Mal makes the point internalize the cost else any other efforts are pointless. Talk about being over your head.
Might want to direct some of this to Brian who flies from California to DC every year. A water district "director" from Santa Clara! lol. Is he and the water district internalizing that cost?
1
"The thread started with the implication that you can't favor climate divestment and use fossil fuels at the same time, which is pretty silly but at least topical."
Perhaps you should extend your arms above your head to catch the points people are making.
The point was if you are going to go around describing fossil fuel companies as evil and the people that invest in them as "imposing climate change on everyone" (that is a funny statement in itself) then perhaps you might want to find ways to curb your purchases and usage of fossil fuels. No one said you need to live in cave, the point is stop conducting business as usual and make a dang effort yourself for those things you preach/rant about.
1
AT1: "'AT1 personifies the challenge confronting us:'
Says you. Proof please?"
Kid, every comment you make is proof 8^D!
Us versus Them, ah isn't that so simple of you.
1
AT1: "Us versus Them, ah isn't that so simple of you."
Even simpler, everyone vs. you.
Another Rabett posting things that are not true.
yawn
1
Please, Mal is one of RPJ's bunnies:)
The Rabett: "Please, Mal is one of RPJ's bunnies:)"
I am? Is there another Mal who hangs out with RPJ?
No, but he strongly favors maladaptation:)
Post a Comment