The results of following the policy prescriptions of pseudo-environmentalists like Rachel Carson and Paul Ehrlich is not a cleaner environment but inefficient use of scarce resources, according to a new video featuring Walter Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University, and Dr. Fred Singer from the Science and Environmental Policy Project.
I have not seen the video, but provide this information on behalf of a reader of this blog. The issue is certainly one often discussed here, but the language used by Williams and Singer is perhaps new?
Titled ‘The high cost of pseudo-environmentalism’ the converation between Williams and Singer apparently focuses on the issue of whether or not the United States is taking the right approach to the environment.
The promo for the CD/DVD which costs US$25 includes:
“The discussants agree that much of what passes for environmentalism today is based on parochial interests rather than creditable science and the common good.
Williams and Singer criticize Rachel Carson and Paul Ehrlich for their Malthusian predictions that have proven to be grossly inaccurate.
The opportunity cost of pseudo-environmentalism is the good that could have been done in other areas of public policy. Specific examples of imprudent policies, like the banning of DDT, are discussed. Dr. Singer questions the scientific validity of much environmentalism. He agrees with Walter Williams that environmentalism has been used to advocate government control of people’s lives much like the discredited ideologies of socialism and communism. Both discussants believe that providing the media with accurate information about the environment would help educate the public about the dangers of pseudo-environmentalism.”
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Well I’ll stick my neck out and say that Landcare is a total wank and from what I have heard and experienced most of these regeneration groups and trusts are more about grandstanding and little about hard work.
Cripes – Rog – I thought you’d be supportive. I’m shocked (serious comment). More info pls.
What’s a pseudo-environmentalist? One who pretends to be concerned for the environment but actually serves a different master – mainstream corporate powers and personal career ambitions – Master Personal Profit?
What exactly are those “predictions that have proven to be grossly inaccurate” I wonder. You see a lot of noise about the alleged incorrect doomsday scenarios of Carson & collaborators but are they ever accurately cited?
Do readers here think that DDT should still be used in agriculture? Was it wrong to ban DDT from agric or from use against mossies in areas where it has no effect?
Thinksi,
There are a lot of pseudo-environmentalists out there. Some are paid for by corporations who want to monkey-wrench the competition. Often a little money goes a long way, such as busing in groups of people to a protest, providing food and lodging, and calling them “farmers.” Others are paid for by groups of corporations or governments who find protests and scaremongering a cost-effective route to trade protectionism. Yet others, notably Greenpeace, simply protest for profit. Still other corporations throw money at “green” groups in order to enhance the market image of their products. The green groups, bestowed with this largesse from so many sources, obediently claim to speak for “the environment,” but they are actually pursuing other goals.
In short, pseudo-environmentalists consist of the green marketeers and the gullible ones who fall for the advertising.
Obviously DDT should be used in agriculture when its use is cost-effective compared to alternatives. Currently, its most beneficial agricultural use (when allowed) is to prevent morbidity and mortality among agricultural workers caused by malaria. DDT has little agricultural value beyond that, as more effective chemicals have been devised. Originally, the ban on agriculural use was not very bright. In fact, the ban was pseudo-environmentalist.
Now, the ban on DDT is blatantly anti-human and racist.
Schiller.
Schiller you have a peculiar definition of agricultural use. What doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger, right? Therefore immediate financial costs are the only consideration and a hot glass of DDT makes a lovely tipple after dinner.
Corporations aren’t chasing profits but Greenpeace is. Did polar north shift last night? *Which* ban (location, type of use) on use of DDT is anti-human and racist?
Is there a good litmus test, ie if I meet an environmentalist in a bar, how can I tell if they’re pseudo?
Oh, for the love of God.
DDT IS NOT BANNED.
The ban on the agricultural use of DDT has saved lives, because it slows the development of resistence, making it more useful against malaria.
I think providing accurate information about the environment is a good thing. Too bas Williams and Singer ain’t doing it.
Huh?
*DDT IS NOT BANNED.
The ban on the agricultural use of DDT….*
God knows..
LOTS of prior discussions on this rog. Go do some research then perhaps you’ll know too
Which part of the word BAN do you not understand stinky? DDT was been BANned in the US despite significant evidence being presented supporting the continued use of DDT.
Thinksy asks ‘What exactly are those predictions [about the environment] that have proven to be grossly inaccurate” and questions whether these are ever accurately cited. Well here’s one, from the Global 2000 Report to President Jimmy Carter, published in 1980:
‘Extinctions of plant and animal species will increase dramatically [between now and 2000]. Hundreds of thousands of species – perhaps 20 per cent of all species on earth – will be lost as their habitats vanish, especially in tropical forests.’
And from the biodiversity chapter of the technical report for Global 2000, authored by Thomas Lovejoy:
‘What then is a reasonable estimate of global extinctions by 2000? In the low deforestation case, approximately 15 per cent of the planet’s species can be expected to be lost. In the high deforestation case, perhaps as much as 20 per cent will be lost. This means than 3-10 million species now present on the earth, at least 500,000 – 600,000, will be extinguished during the next two decades.’
I don’t think any biologist claims that species loss DID occur on anything remotely approaching this scale between 1980 and 2000 (although many believe that it may happen in the future).
Please do not tell me I’m making light of environmental concerns: that is not the subject. I’m simply giving an example of gross exaggeration (one of scores I could cite from the influential Global 2000 report) in response to the suggestion that such examples may not exist or are being inaccurately quoted.
Since I’m claiming to cite accurately, I’d better correct the error in the Lovejoy quote. For “means than 3 – 10 million species”, please substitute “means that of the 3 – 10 million species”.
Ian -> where are the environmental doomsday quotes from Carson or Ehrlich?
While yr claiming to cite accurately, tell us, where there NO qualifications whatsoever to these predictions? No suggestions that programmes could be (or have been) launched to change the outcome? Or did you just lift those quotes from Lomborg?
If you are in possession of the full Global 2000 report and background, why don’t you mention:
that this was the 1st ever estimation of global extinction rates (‘biological diversity’ had just been coined);
that the calculations for the report had to be squeezed into a 6 month timeframe with available knowledge;
these projections stimulated a great deal of awareness and numerous mitigating efforts, particularly in tropical areas;
Lovejoy originated the debt-for-nature swaps which have protected large areas of tropical forest;
ie hardly a case of ‘gross exaggeration’ as you like to call it, but a first estimate in a very important area.
The early predictions (70s to early 80s) of these scientists were ground-breaking and advanced the use and understanding of complex models and systems (with limited data). Much progress has been since those days (including better research and available data). It’s easy to judge with the benefit of hindsight; mitigating actions which resulted from the dire predictions; and drastically improved modelling abilities. This does not show that the scientists were ‘exaggerating’ from the data and the trends as could be seen in their day.
Thinksy, You wondered whether there were “predictions that have proven to be grossly inaccurate”, and I gave you one. As it happens, I didn’t lift the quotes from Lomborg, but it wouldn’t make a jot of difference if I had.
Are you serious in asking me where are the doomsday quotes from Paul Ehrlich? In ‘New Scientist, 14 December 1967, he argued that the United States should ‘ announce that it will no longer ship food to coountries such as India where dispassionate analysis indicates that the unbalance between food and population is hopeless.. our insufficient aid should be reserved for those whom it may save.’
In ‘The PopulationBomb’, published in the following year, he argued that ‘The battle to feed humanity is over. In the course of the 1970s the world will experience starvation of tragic proportions.. Hundreds of millions of people will starve to death.’ Ehrlich also claimed that he was ‘yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971, if ever.’
Why should I answer your raft of rhetorical questions? You’re the one who doubted whether ANY environmental prediction has ever proved to be grossly inaccurate. I haven’t said or implied the opposite. Sorry, Thinksy, I’m not going to play your game.
You are getting very lazy in your research stinky, when Ehrlich was asked if there no contemporary or foreseeable future technology that can cope with the burden of present rate of population increase he replied;
“None whatsoever. Absolutely hopeless.”
Just to make sure everyone was feeling totally depressed he also said “… if we’re very fortunate, the Green Revolution will buy us perhaps ten to twenty years to solve the population explosion. If you know anything about demography, you know that, short of a rise in the death rate, there is no way whatever you can bring the population explosion to a halt in that time.
He saw the future (which is now the past) as “the battle to feed humanity is over. In the course of the 1970s the world will experience starvation of tragic proportions – hundreds of millions of people will starve to death.”
Positive sort of character isnt he?
Thinks-machine – on some long observation these guys are just professional raggers – make a list of your favourite greenie targets and just keep going. At some point this just becomes all consumingly political. And from these examples we then generalise that everything is like this.
Frankly its disingenuous.
What would be interesting as to whether these guys think there any environmental issues at all worth pursuing. I reckon from the look of – there isn’t any.
It’s harder to be positive and have a discussion on actual issues or science isn’t it.
It’s easier just to crank up the retro record player.
You’re right Phil. Ian proves himself to be disingeneous. He shouldn’t stray from known territory, he should stick to MER PPP comparisons.
Ian makes spurious claims of “gross exaggeration” on the basis of cherry-picked quotes, ignoring the context of that time and the results of substantial mitigation programmes that arose from those projection estimates. He’s now squirming out of the thread because he simply can’t respond to my last 2 paras.
Disingineous indeed. Ian grossly twisted my question ‘What exactly are those “predictions that have proven to be grossly inaccurate”‘ (referring to Carson etc, asking for specifics)
into a distorted accusation that I “doubted whether ANY environmental prediction has ever proved to be grossly inaccurate” (misleading emphasis Ian’s)
and yet Ian claims to be an objective, fact driven individual concerned only for the truthful processes?!!??! Ooohhh oohhh a fat pig just flew past the window, must run, get my crossbow (grenade tipped bolts) – levitating bacon for breaky tomorrow!! nhayyay.
Of course it is political and it is the green/left who are being disingeneous, er disingineous, er – hey stinky, how do you spell disingenuous?
Colin Challen: We must think the unthinkable, and take voters with us
Published: 28 March 2006
Climate change means that business as usual is dead. It means that economic growth as usual is dead. But the politics of economic growth and business as usual live on.
What needs to change to bring about a political tipping point? What is stopping us from taking the radical path we need to follow today if we are to avoid dangerous climate change tomorrow?
We are imprisoned by our political Hippocratic oath: we will deliver unto the electorate more goodies than anybody else. Such an oath was only ever achievable by increasing our despoliation of the world’s resources. Our economic model is not so different in the cold light of day to that of the Third Reich – which knew it could only expand by grabbing what it needed from its neighbours.
Genocide followed. Now there is a case to answer that genocide is once again an apt description of how we are pursuing business as usual, wilfully ignoring the consequences for the poorest people in the world. The DfID submission to the Stern Review on the economics of climate change makes it clear that climate change will do untold damage to the life chances of millions of people.
To accept responsibility is not merely to say “sorry”. Too often saying sorry seemed to be enough, like saying we’re sorry for the slave trade. Rarely do such apologies come with compensation. But the strength of our relationship with climate change is that it gives us the power to change – it is not the past, it is the future. We can discharge our responsibilities by changing our behaviour. This will only be worthwhile if we can measure the impact of our policies within an overall framework which allocates responsibilities fairly and sustainably. This was indeed the assessment at the heart of the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), that so many countries including the US signed up to.
We know that we need to reduce our carbon emissions so that we arrive at a safe concentration in the atmosphere – perhaps 450 parts per million. We also know that without developing countries being part of a global agreement, it won’t work. The US Senate rejected Kyoto because it wasn’t inclusive enough. The UNFCCC spoke of equity. DfID told Stern that the “ mitigation of greenhouse gases poses a fundamental equity problem”.
The answer is convergence – we should aim to contract our emissions while converging to a per-capita basis of shared emissions rights. If our framework is disciplined by science, and not what is simply the current economic model, we may be able to break the Faustian pact we have entered into before it ends in tears.
Contraction and convergence at the domestic level could be addressed by introducing tradable carbon rations. A national carbon budget would be set each year, with year-on-year reductions, and equal per capita quotas would be issued annually – perhaps starting at around 10 tons or 10,000 “ carbon units” each. For those who didn’t use all their units, they could sell their surplus to those more profligate. Such an approach would stimulate investment in both energy reduction and alternatives.
These policies are a radical departure from business as usual. But since none of the mechanisms we currently have in place are solving the problem faster than it is being created, we must look to forging a new consensus which can think the unthinkable – and take the electorate along with it.
Colin Challen is the Labour MP for Morley and Rothwell, Leeds and chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group
And, oh gosh stinky, looks as if your moralising and paternalistic bretheren have abandoned secularism and brought in the big guns, just so right for a Sunday.
Archbishop urges emissions cuts
By Roger Harrabin
BBC Environment Correspondent
The archbishop says Christian teachings would demand action
The Archbishop of Canterbury has called on the UK government to coerce people into cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
Dr Rowan Williams said drivers should be forced to stick to the 70mph speed limit on motorways to radically reduce their releases of carbon dioxide (CO2).
He said the public had a moral responsibility to change lifestyles.
The consequences if they did not, the Archbishop warned, would be the deaths of billions of people worldwide from the effects of extreme climate change.
He said US President George W Bush’s stance of refusing to cut emissions because it might compromise American jobs was not compatible with a Christian point of view.
“I think if we look at the language of the Bible we very often come across situations where people are judged for not responding to warnings,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
“I think what the Bible and the Christian tradition suggest is that those who have that challenge put before them, and not only that challenge but the evidence for it, and don’t respond, bear a very heavy responsibility before God.”
‘Unwelcome possibilities’
His comments come on the day of the UK government’s long-awaited climate change review. This is supposed to demonstrate how the government will achieve its self-imposed 20% cut in CO2 levels by 2010.
But the most optimistic scenario in the document will achieve no more than 18%; the worst-case scenario is less than 15%. The Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) has been bidding for big business to be allowed to actually increase emissions.
In a foreword to the climate policy review document, the Prime Minister says the government is still aiming to cut levels by 20%. Ministers say more cuts can be obtained through the energy review, the housing review and through future budgets.
Dr Williams said the consequences of global warming could be catastrophic unless governments were prepared to take difficult decisions.
“I think this is something in the long run the government has to brazen out.
“Nobody likes talking about governmental coercion in this respect, whether it’s speed limits or anything else. Nobody for that matter likes talking about enforceable international protocols.
“And yet unless there’s a real change in attitude we have to contemplate those very unwelcome possibilities if we want the global economy not to collapse and millions, billions of people to die”.
The UK is currently on track to meet its Kyoto commitment to reduce emissions of six different greenhouse gases by an average of 12.5% compared with 1990 levels over the years 2008 to 2012
The fall in emissions through the 1990s and early part of the 2000s was achieved at a time of strong growth in the UK economy
Carbon dioxide emissions have risen recently, largely due to increased burning of coal in power stations. This was prompted by a rise in the price of gas (gas is ‘cleaner’ than coal)
The Labour administration has stated in three election manifestos that it would like to see a 20% cut in CO2 emissions by 2010
But of course, lets not allow the facts to detract from a good (scare) story, WWF are doggedly sticking with the party line
Fears fade on Barrier Reef bleaching disaster
Stephen Lunn
March 31, 2006
THE Great Barrier Reef is far more resilient to rising water temperatures than scientists feared, with less than 1 per cent of its coral affected by bleaching after the hot summer.
Scientists had predicted that as much as 60 per cent of the reef’s coral might suffer bleaching, which occurs when warm temperatures rob the living coral of nutrition.
But professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, from the University of Queensland’s Centre for Marine Studies, said yesterday that samples he had collected from the various parts of the reef showed the fears were unfounded.
Professor Hoegh-Guldberg’s survey showed coral north of the Keppel Islands near Rockhampton had escaped bleaching, and less than 1 per cent of the outer reef had been affected.
“I was surprised about the fact that we had some bleaching within the coastal regions, but it wasn’t as bad as we’d seen in the Keppel Islands (previously),” he told ABC TV.
“Probably about 1000sqkm of reef has experienced moderate to severe bleaching but, given the size of the Great Barrier Reef, this is quite a minimal impact.”
In January, the professor’s team at the University of Queensland had initially been concerned that the 2005-06 summer could be a repeat of 2001-02, when more than half the reef was bleached and between 5 per cent and 10 per cent of the coral died.
The concern had arisen after above-average sea temperatures had been recorded through the summer months.
“This year we are worried because we have higher (temperature) anomalies which may result in greater damage,” Professor Hoegh-Guldberg said at the time.
But their concerns proved unfounded, confirming the views last month of scientist Peter Ridd, who said the Great Barrier Reef was one of the world’s most resilient ecosystems.
“The only place that’s probably better is Antarctica,” said Dr Ridd, from Townsville’s James Cook University.
A spokesman for conservation organisation WWF, Richard Leck, still offered a warning if ocean temperatures rose.
“By 2050, unless we build the resistance of the reef, we will be faced with a pretty diminished resource,” Mr Leck said.
Any damage to the reef would hurt the economies of Queensland and Australia.
The reef is worth $5.8 billion to the national economy, employs more than 60,000 people and is visited by more than two million tourists each year.
Scientists are urging state and federal governments to reduce greenhouse emissions to avoid the bleaching that hit east Africa in 1998, when 50 per cent of its reefs were lost.
Thinkxi, I’m just squirming back to point out that it was you who asked me ‘where are the environmental doomsday quotes from Carson or Ehrlich?’ I didn’t make a list of my favourite greenie targets: I was simply responding to your question. Yes, I cherry-picked: I chose the first statement by Ehrlich that I know about, and the first sentences in his first book. Please let us have some balancing quotes from ‘The Population Bomb’ if you think that the sentences I quoted aren’t representative of the book.
You have your own view of ‘the context of that time’, Thinkxi, but I prefer the interpretation that was presented by John Maddox, then editor of ‘Nature’, in ‘The Doomsday Syndrome’ (1972). I thought that Maddox was right to argue that the prophets of doom were setting back the environmental cause, and nothing has happened to change my mind.
If that means that you think I have a closed mind, then so be it. It was certainly open to the stimulating news and current affairs columns of Nature under Sir John;s editorship.
Maddox replied with dignity to the attacks on his book and on his editorials in Nature by pseudo-environmentalists such as Ehrlich, who has devoted an inordinate amount of effort over the past forty years to impugning the integrity and competence of his peers.
Ehrlich described Australia’s Colin Clark (the inventor of PPPs) as ‘an elderly Catholic economist’, and Julian Simon as ‘ignorant’, ‘crazy’, ‘an imbecile’ and ‘moronic.’ In response to an interviewer who asked his opinion of Simon, Ehrlich said ‘that’s like asking a nuclear physicist about horoscopes.’ If these are examples of being positive and having a discussion on actual issues, I think I’ll stick to my old-fashioned ways.
Still nothing there to excuse a claim of “gross exaggeration”. But enough to explain the basis of the opinion, thanks for clarifying.
Still nothing there that acknowledges the ground-breaking work and the muddier context of that Global 2000 report and earlier gloomy estimates.
Nothing that admits that my question was distorted into an entirely different question.
And still no indication of the ability (from rog) to read or comprehend. I asked for specifics in the first instance, I didn’t deny that any predictions had not been met by the exact time date. Some still may be met as even Ian himself admits. None of this excuses people from (mis)quoting (generally from 2nd hand sources) by excluding the qualifying statements and expressions of uncertainty that accompanied the allegedly unqualified ‘predictions’.
rog, refer original post, then recall the line of yr party member Louis: when has an economist even made an accurate prediction?
correction: ever made, not even made
Ian, re: Maddox ‘The Doomsday Syndrome’ – we give excessive attention to minor threats – doesn’t this support an argument that we’re consistently poor at identifying the real threats? Not necessarily that the other ‘real threats’ will wipe us out completely, but they can wipe out numbers of us, from small pockets thru to most of us. ie, overlooking ‘a’ potentially significant threat – isn’t this consistent with Diamond’s Collapse book which gets reviled on this blog?
Copyright on ‘The high cost of pseudo-environmentalism’ is 1993. Thirteen years on, has it had any impact whatsoever?
(Copyright ©1999 Mike Merg Revised January 2005) provides another insight into the subject matter under the name of ‘greenwashing’.
Thanks Thinxy. I haven’t read Diamond’s book or the discussion of it on this blog, so I probably shouldn
Anyway, nice to see the Gouldian Finch on the rebound.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1603220.htm
Endangered finch sightings leave ornithologists hopeful
Bird researchers in northern Australia are hoping the endangered gouldian finch could finally be on the path to recovery.
The finch, one of Australia’s most endangered birds, is reappearing in places it has not been seen for up to 15 years.
For decades the numbers of the vivid finch have dwindled in the wild, the victim of bushfires, a parasitic mite and the loss of native grass seed.
Birdwatchers have reported the highest number of sightings in years in Kakadu, Arnhem Land and Cape York.
Professor Stephen Garnett from Charles Darwin University believes better fire management may have helped the bird’s revival and he is optimistic it may even return to the towns.
“They used to be in Katherine and they used to be in towns … through Queensland and just imagine having that, down south they have sparrows. Up here we have gouldian finches, fabulous.”
Colleen O’Malley, from the Threatened Species Network, also says better fire management may explain the increase in numbers.
“We’re talking birds in the vicinity of 200 to 400 in a flock, which is a really exciting thing that sort of harks back to the days when there were flocks of thousands of birds,” she said.
“We’re just quite excited that that might mean that there’s a positive trend in the population. But we’re not certain yet, we’ll have to wait for a couple more seasons to see whether those numbers hold.”
Its important to remember Ms stinky (retired) that the projections of the past have failed to meet the facts of the present.
Rising population did not mean less food
end of story.
Ian if you’re saying that a multi-disciplinary, experienced and expert (ie combining science as well on-the-ground and local real experience), cross-cutting approach is needed to address these problems then you’d get few arguments. Same applies if you’re saying that a systems approach is needed, with relevant expertise, but not all problems need a global approach; or where they can be effective, more localised fixes shouldn’t be delayed in favour of a global or regional solution that’s difficult to bring about; and pre-determined, narrowly-defined or fixed solution is appropriate to few if any problems. On Climate change, a global-scale problem, I think that yr position supports a global framework, or at the minimum, a regionally/strategically co-ordinated approach. (I ask as others here have argued for nationally localised activities to mitigate GW without making any connection to a need to co-ordinate and monitor at a broader level – IMHO a narrow solution that also fits with yr outline above of poor policy prescriptions).
Various of the views, estimates and predictions dicussed above are quite old and arose from the particular trends, mindsets, sociopolitical landscape, available data, emerging understanding and limited data of the time. We could similarly produce wacky statements and predictions from the other side of the fence but it wouldn’t lead to a progressive discussion (not denying that it’s a useful exercise to learn from the past, but this applies to all sides). As to whether those same patterns of thinking have continued into today – everyone has biases, cultural and preferential, in their thinking. As to good climate change processes today and in the future, which is yr concern, well we loop back to para 1 above.
Interestingly, some evolutionary biologists have shared your view on the limited applicability of the law of thermodynamics, but for quite different reasons.
Ian, on the topic of identifying threats and loosely on the book Collapse (which I haven’t read either, but understand the central theme to be that of civilisations past rising and then falling due to causes that they failed to recognise, so are we to assume that our civilsation won’t fall?): pls don’t dismiss this as doomsdaying, but are we due for another (great/greater?) depression? Is this inevitable or do we assume that the current globalised economic system is infallible? We have unpredecented patterns of dispersal and distribution of trade, debt and savings and concentration of wealth – does this make the global economy more or less resilient? We’ve spent years partying like it’s 1999, can we expect a doozy of a hangover? Does this possibility go ignored? In addition to the obvious human cost, that would have severe environmental repercussions. (Similarly I’ve asked some questions here about overall security and redundancy in our global food production systems but there wasn’t any indication that this gets consideration).
rog it’s just as important to remember that famines aren’t caused by a shortage of food.
Thinxy, You have asked some large questions and I can’t do more than try to indicate where I stand on some of them. I agree with everything you say in your first five lines.
On climate change, I’m not sure that my preferred approach does require a global framework, but a good deal turns on what is meant by ‘framework’. The point is that many of the responses that countries have available to them to respond to climate change yield a combination of benefits, only some of which are global. Others bring direct benefits to the countries concerned (energy efficiency, energy security and air quality, to name a few).
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol forces developing countries into the position of having to demonstrate that they wouldn’t have taken a particular course of action unless support through this mechanism had been available. This is undesirable and I’m not at all sure that it wouldn’t be better (including for climate change outcomes) if the resources were made available unconditionally to developing countries, so that they are free to make their own decisions in the light of their perceptions of their best interests.
I certainly don’t think the current globalised system is ‘infallible’ in the sense of being ‘beyond improvement,’ It has however proved surprisingly resilient, e.g., in the speed of the recovery from the Asian crisis in the late-1990s. The speed of the transformation over the greater part of Asia would have been unimaginable as recently as 20 years ago.
On Collapse, the sub-title of which is ‘How societies choose to fail or succeed’, I’ve read a set of eight commentaries under the editorship of Prorfessor Julian Morris that were published in ‘Energy and Environment’, 2005, vol. 16, no. 3 & 4. I was shocked to read in the last of these pieces (by Jane Shaw, of Montana) of Diamond’s contemptuous treatment of the powerful and well-documented works of the late Julian Simon.
I don’t think that we can be certain that our society won’t fail, but if failure arises from an inability to recognise the causes that may lead to failure, as Diamond argues, the best protection must surely be openness of discussion and tolerance of dissent. This leads me to be very wary of Diamond and the company he keeps.
I doubt if depression on the 1930s scale IS possible any more, because so much is now known about the perverse actions that produced it. But if this diagnosis is wrong, it’s still difficult to know what could or should be done to remedy the situation.
I don’t know enough about global food issues to answer your question – detribe certainly knows much more, I don’t know whether or not he’s following our exchange.