Cameron And Carbon
Cameron Diaz has been backing Al Gore in his crusade against global warming. When asked what she does personally, she said she drives a Prius, she "carbon neutralize[s]" when traveling, etc. She emphasized it's personal change that'll turn things around, not some big machine that takes carbon from the air and spits it into outer space.
I think she (and a lot of people) have it backwards. Let's say we all do what we can and, succeeding beyond expectations, are able to significantly reduce carbon emissions. All this will mean (aside from the pain it causes), seems to me, is we'll slow down any growing problems associated with carbon dioxide, not reverse them.
As sci-fi as it may sound, I think the ultimate solution will be something technical that positively affects the atmosphere. In fact, that carbon-sucking machine sounds great.
Self-sacrifice may make people feel they're doing something important, but it doesn't mean it's the best, or even a good, answer.
posted by LAGuy @ 1:00 PM
5 Comments:
I totally agree! Sadly, for most "green" people, ecology is no longer a science, it's a religion.
Ecology is an important science. It is often crucial to the future of the human race that we recycle certain things, that we conserve certain things, and that we not over-extract certain resources from certain regions.
But you need a scientific approach to when this is needed. Maybe recycling paper is beneficial and recycling plastic isn't. Or vice-versa. This should be a pragmatic question. But for most greens, it's a moral question.
And that blinds them to the fact that science is the way to find the solutions. How about a big ozone generator in Antarctica?
It is interesting how many conservatives believe in the law of unintended consequences for some things but ignore it for others. The problem with some science fiction machine to reverse the effects of what we are doing is that it would certainly have major unforeseen results -- probably not good. It would be like eating all the wrong diet and smoking, and then taking some "miracle" drug to reverse the inevitable results. Later on, you find out the drug is now killing you. The planet is like your body -- don't mess with it too badly and it will probably take care of itself. (Like, say a market?)
On the other hand, I agree that it would be great to get real pragmatic information about what works and what is a waste of time. Selling carbon credits is an example of greens not wanting to get their hands dirty with money and so wasting or delaying an opportunity to make real improvement.
I can't speak for conservatives, but when I refer to a technological solution, obviously I'm taking into account the consequences, as far as they can be figured. In fact, it seems to me it's the gung ho liberals (though I can't speak for them either) who want to stop carbon emissions so badly that many don't seriously try to balance the huge consequences of doing so.
I think Larry has a good point when he notes how some make the environment a moral issue. They think we're doing something wrong, and that we should feel bad, and make sacrifices. Actually, anonymous unwittingly hits on a useful analogy when it comes to bad eating habits, or smoking. I believe if someone came up with a pill that would counteract the bad effects, it would bother a lot of people, who'd feel that people shouldn't be able to solve the problem without reforming.
Do libertarians worry about unintended consequences?
It isn't about moral approbation. It's because very complex systems that evolve over billions of years have so many unknown interactions that man cannot foresee the effects of swooping in with a technological "solution." The pill would be great -- if you find it, let me know. But history has proved it elusive and the yearning has long enriched snake oil salesmen, and then class action lawyers.
Ms. Diaz' approach, at worst, will certainly do no harm. At best (if broadly adopted) it will, possibly, slow the process enough that we will have extra time to develop -- and they troubleshoot and refine -- a technological solution before Things Get Bad.
I heard on the beeb that China's central government is making strong efforts to curb carbon emissions, but are being hampered, if not ignored, at the local level. The Party used to argue that it was totally unfair for a developing nation to be held to a more restrictive standard than western economies ever were at their stage of development. But now they've realized that the projected loss of Chinese farmland to desertification if global warming goes unchecked makes it in their interest to self-impose restrictions.
Post a Comment
<< Home