Would Clinton prefer to phrase it differently? I'm sure. But it's hardly unfair to quote the man. It's not out of context or anything. He very clearly says we need to slow down the economy.
Are Dems going to campaign on this? Of course not, that's why it's funny to think of slogans expressing this sentiment. It's just a telling slip.
If either party had any vision they could really use the energy issue to motivate and inspire the american people. Instead of slowing down our economy or burying our heads in the sand about the finite amount of oil on the planet, a visionary politician could rally people behind the idea of developing alternative energy. If president Kennedy could inspire a nation to use slide rules and guts to land a man on the moon, surely we have the capacity to find ways other than fossil fuels to power the worlds economy.
Incidently, I live in Denver, and Clinton was here last night campaigning for Hillary. They did a live cut on the news to his remarks right at the moment he said that. The context of his remarks was the following:
And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada — the rich counties — would say, 'OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.' We could do that. But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren.
Basically, he is saying that even if we slowed down our economy it wouldn't do any good because all the countries aspiring to be rich wouldn't stop their greenhouse emissions. So Clinton was actally pointing out that it wouldn't be a good idea to slow our economy.
This is why Global Warming is a religion instead of a science. Once you accept the premise that man-made C02 emissions are destroying the planet, it becomes very hard not to argue from a moral perspective that we have to make some sacrifices "for the children."
I was watching a National Geographic special on Yosemite a few months back, and they were giving the typical Global Warming dogma, all about how we needed to stop using oil to save the "one remaining glacier" in the park. Then they took the camera around to show all the beautiful landscapes that had been carved by all the other glaciers that used to be in the park. You know, the glaciers that melted long before the invention of the internal combustion engine.
The fact that virtually all glacier melting in Yosemite had occurred eons before "Global Warming" was "discovered" was stated repeatedly. But the single remaining glacier's retreat was repeatedly blamed on human caused "Global Warming."
In other words, National Geographic showed direct physical evidence that glaciers have been melting in Yosemite for thousands of years, and that the entire park was once covered in ice, and all of that ice had melted before humans even discovered the region, and the ice melting has been continuous ever since the last ice age.
But somehow, this LAST glacier was only melting because of human activity. And this LAST glacier demanded great human sacrifice to save it before it too melted.
And this was done with no sense of irony. It was presented as simple fact.
It would seem to me that if glaciers have been melting in Yosemite for thousands of years, and entire mountains of ice have melted long before humans began using oil as fuel, it seems somewhat of a stretch to blame the final glacier's melting on human beings.
A fair way to interpret Clinton's remarks is that he WOULD slow down the economy if only those OTHER countries would not take advantage of the opportunity to drive their own economic engine at the expense of the environment and our children's future.
Here's the deal on that "policy." Basically that is Bill Clinton saying "well, I don't really want to run off the edge of the cliff, but since everyone else is, we better not get left behind."
If he actually believes the Global Warming hype, then this approach to dealing with it is pure and simple short-term self-interest. Sure, we'll destroy the world so that India and China don't catch up to us. I mean we can't have THAT!
When he said that 'the rich countries' would say 'we' it seems fairly obvious that by we he meant the rich countries.
I am on the skeptical side of the global warming debate, particularly when it comes to most of the proposed rememdies, but this post is just crazy. It is a rebutal against a caricature of the positions of the global warming advocates rather then a rebutal against what is actually being discussed. This sort of thing is what we often see on Kos, but unusual for Dean's World.
I've heard people say that exact same sentence in private. I've also heard discussions of the necessity of a die-off. Mostly these comments are kept private, among those who are faithful to AGW.
If anything, the mistake is in thinking that this is talking about a recession, which is transient. The times I've heard it, it has decidedly not been about anything transient. Certainly a die-off would not be transient.
it's only the broken windows fallacy if you believe that global warming is a manufactured problem. if AGW is true, then it makes sense to solve it in a way which drives our economy, rather then by a way that slows it. This also answers Sean's point about running off a cliff, or destroying the world to keep China and India from dominance. He isn't suggesting we run along with them, he's suggesting that we keep running, just not over the cliff.
re: "And guess what? The only places in the world today in rich countries where you have rising wages and declining inequality are places that have generated more jobs than rich countries because they made a commitment we didn't. They got serious about a clean, efficient, green, independent energy future…"
I agree that some are taking Bill out of context.
Anyway. Who understands the quote above? I don't. Can you name some of those places?
Bill Clinton said:
We just have to slow down our economy
He didn't say:
solve it in a way which drives our economy, rather then by a way that slows it
In fact, the second statement explicitly rejects the first.
Reducing CO2 emissions is not the only way. Unfortunately, many so-called environmentalists explicitly reject any alternative.
There are a lot of Stalinists, Maoists and apologists within "environmentalistm". To minimize the cognitive dissonance, it has to be a good thing to kill lots of people.
Actually what I'm trying to say is that if you believe the dogma of global warming, you are on pretty thin ice if you argue that we should continue with our economic practices just because other countries will do it whether we do or not. That's not a very compelling argument for an action you truly believe to be bringing about the destructive end to our way of life, if not our entire civilization.
Now I am one of those global warming skeptics who believes that the current hype around global warming is ridiculously overblown, so I don't mind saying that the US should continue on with its current economic engine while doing reasonable things to address potential impact on the environment. That's the sound, responsible thing to do, and I think that over time the issue will solve itself as other forms of energy eventually dominate fossil fuels. But that may be fifty years in the future. In the meantime I don't expect England to sink into the ocean.
But for someone to claim that they believe in the whole global warming hoopla, and then argue that we should continue to run our engines the same way because other engines are going to run anyway, that seems a bit hypocritical to me.
. if AGW is true, then it makes sense to solve it in a way which drives our economy, rather then by a way that slows it.
Yes and no. For broken window not to apply, AGW has to be not only true, but also a significant net detriment, and solvable through our actions. The jury is very much out on the latter two questions.
Also, there is absolutely no way to address any externality in a way that does not slow the economy. The question is whether the benefit offsets the cost.
Even with the fuller context, it's clear that he's pandering to the luddite viewpoint of the destructive misanthropes of mindlessness.
Those being the people who hate people in general on the basis of their distinctive identification of good & evil with natural & unnatural, the latter being determined by degree of self-awareness.
I.e., if a self-aware entity does something, it's inherently 'unnatural', and therefore evil, while what non-sapient entities do is by-definition 'natural' and therefore good.
So, really, it's entirely correct to criticize him for tacitly supporting the validity of that mindset. . .a mindset which is, of course, predicated upon the earlier death of people such as my father, whose survival into future years depends greatly upon a fast-moving, well-funded medical development cycle which in turn of course is not just facilitated but in fact effectively requires more energy availability rather than less.
AFAIC, people who want to slow down the rate of progress effectively want my father to die sooner rather than later.
Three guesses what I think about that, and them, and the first two don't count.
The solvency of Social Security and Medicare depend on continued economic growth. If the economy were deliberately reduced, we probably wouldn't make those growth numbers.
Geo-engineering works only if it's economically viable on its own - i.e., as cheap or cheaper than other sources of energy (this might be true in Alaska but probably not too many other places, barring new technologies). Generally speaking, disturbance of market forces will avoid slowing the economy, although in many cases this is desirable anyway (i.e., pollution controls).
Also, if a push from the gov't can help new techs like geo and fusion achieve economic viability, that can be a good investment.
Geo-engineering isn't an energy source. It refers to actively controlling the environment, such as seeding the oceans with iron filings or firing dust into the upper atmosphere. Most of the techniques I've seen are fairly low cost, it just takes a will to employ them.
Most of the techniques I've seen are fairly low cost, it just takes a will to employ them.
And a firm conviction that we understand these incredibly complex systems well enough to manipulate them without unintended consequences worse than any hypothesized harm.
But for someone to claim that they believe in the whole global warming hoopla, and then argue that we should continue to run our engines the same way because other engines are going to run anyway, that seems a bit hypocritical to me.
that would indeed be hypocritical. But that's not what he said. He goes on to say:
The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world's fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.
In other words, he believes the whole global warming hoopla, and then believes that BECAUSE of that, we should not stop our engines or continue to run them the same way, but rather that we should find new engines.
I don't know enough to say whether the jury is out or not, but it's clear that where Clinton is coming from is a position where both of your premises are true, i.e. that AGW is real and that it is a net minus. From that perspective he is not advocating anything like the broken windows fallacy.
Additionally, AGW aside, there are other "green" factors to consider, such as other forms of industrial and consumer pollution and their ecotoxicity. Not only that, but peak oil is around the corner if not already here. Eventually, AGW or not, we will have to face the fact that we need to find a new fuel source.
1.31.2008 10:09pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
I'd rather be told an insane idea up front than tried to be sold that the idea isn't actually insane at all.
That's why I'll be voting for General Zod in '08! Why choose the lesser evil, right?
Would Clinton prefer to phrase it differently? I'm sure. But it's hardly unfair to quote the man. It's not out of context or anything. He very clearly says we need to slow down the economy.
Are Dems going to campaign on this? Of course not, that's why it's funny to think of slogans expressing this sentiment. It's just a telling slip.
And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada — the rich counties — would say, 'OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.' We could do that. But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren.
Basically, he is saying that even if we slowed down our economy it wouldn't do any good because all the countries aspiring to be rich wouldn't stop their greenhouse emissions. So Clinton was actally pointing out that it wouldn't be a good idea to slow our economy.
Well, actually he seems to be saying it wouldn't be a good idea to slow just our economy, and that only because other countries won't go along.
And then he gives us the broken windows fallacy argument that we can create jobs this way.
I suppose it is a bit out of context now that I see the full version. But I liked it mostly for the comic potential anyway.
I was watching a National Geographic special on Yosemite a few months back, and they were giving the typical Global Warming dogma, all about how we needed to stop using oil to save the "one remaining glacier" in the park. Then they took the camera around to show all the beautiful landscapes that had been carved by all the other glaciers that used to be in the park. You know, the glaciers that melted long before the invention of the internal combustion engine.
The fact that virtually all glacier melting in Yosemite had occurred eons before "Global Warming" was "discovered" was stated repeatedly. But the single remaining glacier's retreat was repeatedly blamed on human caused "Global Warming."
In other words, National Geographic showed direct physical evidence that glaciers have been melting in Yosemite for thousands of years, and that the entire park was once covered in ice, and all of that ice had melted before humans even discovered the region, and the ice melting has been continuous ever since the last ice age.
But somehow, this LAST glacier was only melting because of human activity. And this LAST glacier demanded great human sacrifice to save it before it too melted.
And this was done with no sense of irony. It was presented as simple fact.
It would seem to me that if glaciers have been melting in Yosemite for thousands of years, and entire mountains of ice have melted long before humans began using oil as fuel, it seems somewhat of a stretch to blame the final glacier's melting on human beings.
But that's what they do.
A fair way to interpret Clinton's remarks is that he WOULD slow down the economy if only those OTHER countries would not take advantage of the opportunity to drive their own economic engine at the expense of the environment and our children's future.
Here's the deal on that "policy." Basically that is Bill Clinton saying "well, I don't really want to run off the edge of the cliff, but since everyone else is, we better not get left behind."
If he actually believes the Global Warming hype, then this approach to dealing with it is pure and simple short-term self-interest. Sure, we'll destroy the world so that India and China don't catch up to us. I mean we can't have THAT!
When he said that 'the rich countries' would say 'we' it seems fairly obvious that by we he meant the rich countries.
I am on the skeptical side of the global warming debate, particularly when it comes to most of the proposed rememdies, but this post is just crazy. It is a rebutal against a caricature of the positions of the global warming advocates rather then a rebutal against what is actually being discussed. This sort of thing is what we often see on Kos, but unusual for Dean's World.
I've heard people say that exact same sentence in private. I've also heard discussions of the necessity of a die-off. Mostly these comments are kept private, among those who are faithful to AGW.
If anything, the mistake is in thinking that this is talking about a recession, which is transient. The times I've heard it, it has decidedly not been about anything transient. Certainly a die-off would not be transient.
it's only the broken windows fallacy if you believe that global warming is a manufactured problem. if AGW is true, then it makes sense to solve it in a way which drives our economy, rather then by a way that slows it. This also answers Sean's point about running off a cliff, or destroying the world to keep China and India from dominance. He isn't suggesting we run along with them, he's suggesting that we keep running, just not over the cliff.
I agree that some are taking Bill out of context.
Anyway. Who understands the quote above? I don't. Can you name some of those places?
We just have to slow down our economy
He didn't say:
solve it in a way which drives our economy, rather then by a way that slows it
In fact, the second statement explicitly rejects the first.
Reducing CO2 emissions is not the only way. Unfortunately, many so-called environmentalists explicitly reject any alternative.
There are a lot of Stalinists, Maoists and apologists within "environmentalistm". To minimize the cognitive dissonance, it has to be a good thing to kill lots of people.
Actually what I'm trying to say is that if you believe the dogma of global warming, you are on pretty thin ice if you argue that we should continue with our economic practices just because other countries will do it whether we do or not. That's not a very compelling argument for an action you truly believe to be bringing about the destructive end to our way of life, if not our entire civilization.
Now I am one of those global warming skeptics who believes that the current hype around global warming is ridiculously overblown, so I don't mind saying that the US should continue on with its current economic engine while doing reasonable things to address potential impact on the environment. That's the sound, responsible thing to do, and I think that over time the issue will solve itself as other forms of energy eventually dominate fossil fuels. But that may be fifty years in the future. In the meantime I don't expect England to sink into the ocean.
But for someone to claim that they believe in the whole global warming hoopla, and then argue that we should continue to run our engines the same way because other engines are going to run anyway, that seems a bit hypocritical to me.
Yes and no. For broken window not to apply, AGW has to be not only true, but also a significant net detriment, and solvable through our actions. The jury is very much out on the latter two questions.
Also, there is absolutely no way to address any externality in a way that does not slow the economy. The question is whether the benefit offsets the cost.
Geo-engineering.
I suspect a lot of enviros would prefer the Sandman approach, though.
Those being the people who hate people in general on the basis of their distinctive identification of good & evil with natural & unnatural, the latter being determined by degree of self-awareness.
I.e., if a self-aware entity does something, it's inherently 'unnatural', and therefore evil, while what non-sapient entities do is by-definition 'natural' and therefore good.
So, really, it's entirely correct to criticize him for tacitly supporting the validity of that mindset. . .a mindset which is, of course, predicated upon the earlier death of people such as my father, whose survival into future years depends greatly upon a fast-moving, well-funded medical development cycle which in turn of course is not just facilitated but in fact effectively requires more energy availability rather than less.
AFAIC, people who want to slow down the rate of progress effectively want my father to die sooner rather than later.
Three guesses what I think about that, and them, and the first two don't count.
Of course, fighting global warming slows down the economy!
But, that might be a good thing, depending on your perspective.
HankB
Sandman.
Geo-engineering works only if it's economically viable on its own - i.e., as cheap or cheaper than other sources of energy (this might be true in Alaska but probably not too many other places, barring new technologies). Generally speaking, disturbance of market forces will avoid slowing the economy, although in many cases this is desirable anyway (i.e., pollution controls).
Also, if a push from the gov't can help new techs like geo and fusion achieve economic viability, that can be a good investment.
And a firm conviction that we understand these incredibly complex systems well enough to manipulate them without unintended consequences worse than any hypothesized harm.
that would indeed be hypocritical. But that's not what he said. He goes on to say:
In other words, he believes the whole global warming hoopla, and then believes that BECAUSE of that, we should not stop our engines or continue to run them the same way, but rather that we should find new engines.
I don't know enough to say whether the jury is out or not, but it's clear that where Clinton is coming from is a position where both of your premises are true, i.e. that AGW is real and that it is a net minus. From that perspective he is not advocating anything like the broken windows fallacy.
Additionally, AGW aside, there are other "green" factors to consider, such as other forms of industrial and consumer pollution and their ecotoxicity. Not only that, but peak oil is around the corner if not already here. Eventually, AGW or not, we will have to face the fact that we need to find a new fuel source.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.