Some thoughts on climate change: the question is not whether average temperatures will increase or not; the question is by how much. We are faced with a "cascade of uncertainty" (IPCC, 2007): how will economies and technologies develop? What will be their impact on emissions? How will those emissions translate into temperature increases and, finally, how do you put a price on the damages to work out the cost and benefits of mitigation? Uncertainty could be the central feature of it (Weitzman).
The current consensus is that the Copenhagen figure (stabilizing at a 2 degrees Celsius increase-on average, mind you) will not hold. What type of ethics or politics will put a hold on it? Don't think markets are the solution (since they're actually the problem...still waiting for N. Klein) and Utilitarianism is too abstract, doesn't motivate ("from the point of view of the universe") and erroneously tries to reduce all value to preferences. More specific problems: it doesn't deal with future generations very well (Discounting: W. Beckerman). A global solution without global institutions?
Which leaves us with community, local solutions (Wendell Berry), an inter-generational moral community (to paraphrase A. Baier). Except capitalism and the markets focus on the short-run and work to dissipate the chances of 'the long now' taking root.
We're in a fix and about to spin out. No-one wants to say it but our insatiable desire for more and more looks like it's bound us to a desperate trajectory of catastrophic changes. Austerity: joy within limits is something we can work to, fashion ourselves, or it will eventually be imposed on us.
(Don't know why, but the light reminded me of Strand's wonderful Mexico pictures).
|||
Pitanguy: "The most important thing is to have a good ego and then you don't need an operation."
The current consensus is that the Copenhagen figure (stabilizing at a 2 degrees Celsius increase-on average, mind you) will not hold. What type of ethics or politics will put a hold on it? Don't think markets are the solution (since they're actually the problem...still waiting for N. Klein) and Utilitarianism is too abstract, doesn't motivate ("from the point of view of the universe") and erroneously tries to reduce all value to preferences. More specific problems: it doesn't deal with future generations very well (Discounting: W. Beckerman). A global solution without global institutions?
Which leaves us with community, local solutions (Wendell Berry), an inter-generational moral community (to paraphrase A. Baier). Except capitalism and the markets focus on the short-run and work to dissipate the chances of 'the long now' taking root.
We're in a fix and about to spin out. No-one wants to say it but our insatiable desire for more and more looks like it's bound us to a desperate trajectory of catastrophic changes. Austerity: joy within limits is something we can work to, fashion ourselves, or it will eventually be imposed on us.
(Don't know why, but the light reminded me of Strand's wonderful Mexico pictures).
|||
Pitanguy: "The most important thing is to have a good ego and then you don't need an operation."
2 comments:
financially speaking a bout of negative interest rates might help a more appropriate discounting of future costs?
But humanly speaking, we seem to utterly lack (more than ever)the ability to forego present pleasures for future gains.
And yet, wouldn't a "joy within limits" be less stressful, more valuable than our current rampant greediness?
hello,fff.Not sure aboutthe negative discounting because future generations will probably be more numerous and richer, making it more difficult to justify the huge sacrifices by current generations.
think you're spot on...the basic problem is that we're addicted to having more and more,no matter what. an that may mean,ultimately,that we come to lack the ability to truly enjoy what we actually have and are.
best,
b.
Post a Comment