h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

On the subject of Kyoto, I'm always struck by the way in which people's opinions on how much environmental trouble we're in always match their other political views. That goes for people on all sides of the debate.

It surprises me that people can take scientific positions with such certainty. I'm not a scientist, and as an interested lay person it seems to be that some scientists think that they've show that we're in trouble, and that some think that they've shown that we're not. The general consensus is that we are in trouble. I'm not sure how strongly non-experts should hold views on all this, and whether their views are based on faith and belief rather than strictly on rationality.

My view is that. There is a chance we're in trouble, so we do a risk assessment. I used to risk assess my workplace for health and safety reasons, and the formula for doing this for each risk was (likelihood of it happening) x (severity of outcome). There's disagreement over the likelihood, but there's no disagrement about the severity of the worst outcome.

For me, the sheer danger of environmental catastrophe is such that we should all (as a race of people) take action to try to prevent it, and that we should share out the burdens of doing this in a just way. If it turns out that the dangers of climate change are exagerrated, what would we have lost? Not much, really. A small price to pay for preventing a serious risk. And it would have other benefits (cleaner air etc). For me, this is the only rational position to take for a non-scientist.

Otto

<...the formula for doing this for each risk was (likelihood of it happening) x (severity of outcome).>

How nice to see the complete formula aired in public. Too often, if the severity of the outcome is significant, the likelihood of its occurrence is ignored or overlooked. Without this, we can devote precious resources to preventing something that will (probably) never happen. Using the full formula,we can assign our resources so that they will do the most good.

This may be drifting a little off-topic, but I think it's worth highlighting. Thanks, Otto, for posting it!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Part of the problem is that when it comes to climate control the most influential people in the world (the American Government) are ideologically committed to big business. Whilst I am not saying that this automatically disqualify what they have to say, it is quite clear that a politician bankrolled by the oil industry will have a biased opinion.

The trouble we have with interpreting research is that all research is carried out for a REASON, that reason inevitably effects the outcome of that research. Therfore there is no such thing as impartial scientific research whatever people would like us to think.

To throw in my 2 cents,

I think it's a shame the Kyoto agreement is such a blotch on the USA's reputation, since internally, environmentalism can be quite hotly debated with good arguments on both sides.

I think there's some knee-jerk reaction here because environmentalists can sometimes be a real force for better living and promoting cleaner water, air and soil. On the other hand you also have radicals who blow up buildings or "spike" trees with metal to rebound when a logger attempts to cut it.

On the other side, there are people who would like to do more for the environment, but are just too practical to push for any major changes. And then, you have a guy I once knew who specifically went out of his way to not recycle as an act of rebellion because he didn't like "tree huggers."

All in all, though I know the Kyoto treaty is a major thing, I think it's best to remember that this country does have quite a bit of struggle when it comes to environmental policy; more so than anyone who doesn't live here would ever see.

People are still talking about likelyhood. I personally don't care about global warming yet as I still haven't seen it proved to be more than a weather cycle. Ozone depletion is real, it's happening now. It's a sunny day outside right now and in a few weeks time the "burn time" will be 10 - 15 minutes.

It's a 20 minute walk between home and work and there's children going to school...

--------------------------------

"ICC would only act if the US refused to investigate,and that's not very likely." - ofcourse not. They take them home and find them not guilty.

Some need to grow some gonads. If you commit a crime in a country then accept their punishment. Otherwise don't go there. What's so difficult to understand?

A little publicized fact is that the ozone layer is repairing itself which is thought to be due to the decline in the use of CFCs. Admittedly it's not perfect but these things take time and it is a success of sorts. It's just a shame that the US broke the Kyoto agreement and then others countries like Australia followed suit.


Going back to something earlier: "The US army is good at fighting wars" I'm sceptical about this as I can't think of a war the US has won on its own. I'm not saying that the British have won all wars on their own, but I feel that we have better understanding of war as we've had it on our own soil. Pearl Harbour isn't quite the same, neither is the World Trade Centre.

Perhaps I was wrong to start this thread, but first I think we need a definition of what freedom is. At one time I thought freedom meant not wearing underwear, but I think my views have changed. Possibly freedom is the right to choose for yourself. However, I can't think of single instance when anyone is truly free. In a number of things we have the right to choose but there's always an 'if' attached to the choice. The 'if' could be that others around you approve. If the law will allow. If you get the right grades. If your partner's parents approve. And so on. True freedom would require a society without prejudice. Such a society does not exist because each individual has some sort of prejudice, it's part of what makes us human. It could be argued that prejudice helps us survive and keep ahead of others, but ultimately how can a nation claim to lead the free world if the country in question is not truly free? And by siting itself falsely as free mean that it it is leading under false pretenses? Or is it searching for freedom and hoping to lead others towards this Holy Grail of ideology? Does freedom mean being free of prejudice? When one has true freedom does this mean that others can follow? And can one nation lead another without prejudice?

Or is this just namby-pamby twaddle?

"but first I think we need a definition of what freedom is."

Therein lies a problem, there is no universally accepted definition of "Freedom". Neo liberals will argue that freedom is about the freedom to pursue wealth creation within a pluralist environment. Marxist argue that we have all been hoodwinked into thinking freedom means choices between different ways of being enslaved to capitol ect.

How you define freedom depends on your view of the world, and your ideological position.

P.S.

By the way when Bush refused to ratify Kyoto he did not make any bones about the reason why, he said the US could not afford to do this.

Translation, you inconvenience your big business, I am not going to because they paid for me to get elected.

I think that difference in the interpretation of freedom comes close to the core of this debate. Americans seem to have a more competitive, less co-operative culture and society than Europeans, justified, at least in part on the grounds that people should be free to pursue their own best interests.

Some Americans abroad can thus be seen, unintentionally, as pushy and aggressive, when in fact they are behaving well, but to a different standard of behaviour.

I wonder if the same happens at the inter-governmental level. That the US government is pushy and competitive to a level that is OK in its culture but not in ours.

"A little publicized fact is that the ozone layer is repairing itself which is thought to be due to the decline in the use of CFCs."

Your wrong mr sandwitch. They *thought* it was. It's bigger now that it was in 2000

"How you define freedom depends on your view of the world, and your ideological position."

Freedom is the ability to survive, have access to the full products of your society and to be yourself comfortably in it, while haveing a real choice to leave ypur soceity and join another or start a new one without loss of life, liberty, a reasonable standard of living, and the ability to to be yourself comfortably.

You're wrong--the ozone layer is shrinking. And there is not yet actual proof that global warming is caused by human activity, although it appears that some of it is.

THe factr is that both liberals and conservatives (at least in the US) try to make it sund like all the evidence is in their favor, but it isn't. In reality, the case is still out and each side is trying to get their way by claiming to be sure that they're right.

"as I can't think of a war the US has won on its own."

US Civil War
Spanish-American War

"US Civil War" you count a civil war?

Giskard, as per ozone hole

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/21964/story.htm
http://xtramsn.co.nz/news/0,,3762-2610157,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/08/22/ozone.hole.reut/
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=3320163

Your inspired and insightful retort was "your wrong". Do you have any other 'flat earth' pearls of wisdom?

For digi box users, here is an excerpt:

" "The growth at the moment is similar to 2000 when the hole was a record size," Australian Antarctic Division scientist Andrew Klekociuk told Reuters on Friday.

Ozone is a protective layer in the atmosphere that shields the Earth from the sun's rays, in particular ultraviolet-B radiation that can cause skin cancer, cataracts and can harm marine life. In 2000, NASA said the ozone hole expanded to a record 10.9 million square miles, three times the size of Australia or the United States, excluding Alaska.

"This is in contrast to the situation in 2002 when unusually warm conditions produced the smallest ozone hole since 1988," Klekociuk said.

The ozone hole in 2003 presently covers all of the Antarctic."

The French and British helped the opposing sides in the civil war.

I was basing the comment about the ozone layer based on this report, which is just a month old and suggested that it was repairing itself. Too soon to tell by the seems of it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3115409.stm

How did the French help the Union? I know the British tried to help the Confederacy because they needed a source of cotton, but they didn't do very much to help it.

BTW, R. Giskard forgot the Mexican War.

In profound embarassment and disgust at the acctions of some of our member-avatars (Agnostic Primist and R. Giskard Reventlov), we have decided to take a leave of absence from H2G2. We will not return here to post for a while. Perhaps we will never return. Any posts directed to us will be responded to by Hari Seldon. (We would like to note that several of our member-avatars are unhappy with this descision and may choose to join Hari Seldon and return to the guide, but we sincearly hope they will wait for a consensus and not act rashly.)

Goodbye and thanks for all the ! We're that we must leave, but we don't really belong here. We don't belong anywhere civilized. We have failed, and failure is forbidden.

""Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview - nothing more constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of openness to novelty."

---------Steven J. Gould"

Giskard:

I have to say that what you described is not an acurate description of freedom but again an ideological position. It is IMO an very good description of what would constitute "Good" freedom (or liberty) but is still nevertheless formed from an ideological position.