Comments on: Good sense into the climate change debate http://globalconditions.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/good-sense-into-the-climate-change-debate/ Random comments by Iana Dreyer on the political climates prevailing under global economic conditions Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:51:19 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: globalconditions http://globalconditions.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/good-sense-into-the-climate-change-debate/#comment-2845 globalconditions Thu, 08 May 2008 08:02:32 +0000 http://globalconditions.wordpress.com/?p=208#comment-2845 Hi "Ricardo"! Well indeed, what contradictions many well-meaning people run into when it comes to climate change, poverty and the like. And "Small is Beautiful" is mostly only perceived as such by privileged people, generally in the West, who can alway run back to the comforts of high-tech civilisation when it becomes a bit too rough. Anyway Burma is probably indeed a concrete example: what kills people is not so much natural events but criminal mismanagement of a country. The country is literally being taken hostage by a corrupt and predatory military junta, and the way it manages the crisis reveals its only interest: to keep a deathly lid on its people. Hi “Ricardo”! Well indeed, what contradictions many well-meaning people run into when it comes to climate change, poverty and the like. And “Small is Beautiful” is mostly only perceived as such by privileged people, generally in the West, who can alway run back to the comforts of high-tech civilisation when it becomes a bit too rough. Anyway Burma is probably indeed a concrete example: what kills people is not so much natural events but criminal mismanagement of a country. The country is literally being taken hostage by a corrupt and predatory military junta, and the way it manages the crisis reveals its only interest: to keep a deathly lid on its people.

]]> By: Richard Lorenc http://globalconditions.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/good-sense-into-the-climate-change-debate/#comment-2844 Richard Lorenc Thu, 08 May 2008 02:30:18 +0000 http://globalconditions.wordpress.com/?p=208#comment-2844 First off, let me go on the record saying that it was great to meet you in Atlanta--my hometown--at the conference of which you write. Secondly, I want to add to what you've written by bringing up a talk I attended a few weeks ago, given by Acton Institute president Rev. Robert Sirico. He discussed seven priorities of the "religious Left," a term that he lamented for lack of a better term. I would call them "religious statists." Sirico pitted six of these priorities (mostly dealing with alleviating poverty and enforcing "equality") against the seventh: Asserting control over the global environment under the auspices of mitigating the perceived human causes of "climate change"/"global warming." He opined how the efforts of those looking to develop the poorest parts of the world will (and do) come in direct contradiction with those of the "climate warriors," and that this will turn into a painful clash between camps that are considered allies today. I can demonstrate this no better than to cite a recent event: the devastating cyclone in Burma/Myanmar. Al Gore calls the shocking number of deaths a consequence of human-caused global warming. Fellow reactionary E.F. Schumacher writes in his book 'Small Is Beautiful' how the Burmese way of life--immobile and without the "pressure or strain of living"--is superior to cosmopolitan societies. He writes how they have greater security than people in the developed world. But what kind of security does one have when 100,000 of his/her neighbors die in a storm? An objective assessment of the situation points the finger of blame to an oppressive military government that stifles its people's natural ingenuity. Were people to have the ability to organize and trade freely the way of life in Myanmar would be greatly improved, and people would have had a better set of opportunities to flee the storm, whatever its cause. Although I haven't heard them yet, the anti-poverty folks will no doubt blame the squalid conditions in Myanmar as the reason for so many deaths. They would be right. (How to improve them is for another discussion altogether.) Therein lies the contradiction with which people who believe in the static power of government planning over the dynamic power of people have yet to deal. First off, let me go on the record saying that it was great to meet you in Atlanta–my hometown–at the conference of which you write.

Secondly, I want to add to what you’ve written by bringing up a talk I attended a few weeks ago, given by Acton Institute president Rev. Robert Sirico. He discussed seven priorities of the “religious Left,” a term that he lamented for lack of a better term. I would call them “religious statists.”

Sirico pitted six of these priorities (mostly dealing with alleviating poverty and enforcing “equality”) against the seventh: Asserting control over the global environment under the auspices of mitigating the perceived human causes of “climate change”/”global warming.”

He opined how the efforts of those looking to develop the poorest parts of the world will (and do) come in direct contradiction with those of the “climate warriors,” and that this will turn into a painful clash between camps that are considered allies today.

I can demonstrate this no better than to cite a recent event: the devastating cyclone in Burma/Myanmar. Al Gore calls the shocking number of deaths a consequence of human-caused global warming. Fellow reactionary E.F. Schumacher writes in his book ‘Small Is Beautiful’ how the Burmese way of life–immobile and without the “pressure or strain of living”–is superior to cosmopolitan societies. He writes how they have greater security than people in the developed world.

But what kind of security does one have when 100,000 of his/her neighbors die in a storm? An objective assessment of the situation points the finger of blame to an oppressive military government that stifles its people’s natural ingenuity. Were people to have the ability to organize and trade freely the way of life in Myanmar would be greatly improved, and people would have had a better set of opportunities to flee the storm, whatever its cause.

Although I haven’t heard them yet, the anti-poverty folks will no doubt blame the squalid conditions in Myanmar as the reason for so many deaths. They would be right. (How to improve them is for another discussion altogether.)

Therein lies the contradiction with which people who believe in the static power of government planning over the dynamic power of people have yet to deal.

]]>