Global Warming: A Growing Woe

I am of the opinion that the whole so called global warming/climate change issue is too complex a subject to just apportion blame willy-nilly onto the veritable human being, especially as no real workable solutions are put forward by the activists and pundits of global warming/climate change theories.

We live in a self perpetuated and accepted way of life that puts much emphasis on finances and wealth. We mostly all work for a living because of that culture: Those that sponge of the system are looked upon as just that; spongers (why don’t you get a job, you lazy good-for-nothing so-and-so.)

The accepted capitalist system is devoid of emotion and empathy: two human qualities that make life liveable and mostly comfortable. We are becoming automaton of technology and convenience while overlooking the consequences of those actions (I have money, why should I care.) Anyway there are enough charities to contribute too to pacify that nagging conscience.

I am also of the opinion that the capitalist system as we know it is long overdue for a makeover. The fact that the living-wage gap (rich vs. poor) is getting larger by the moment, is enough of an indication that all is not well in the land of finances.

Add to the above equation an emotional subject such as global warming/climate change and a calamity is created at the forefront of the human perception and psyche. The situation is mostly aggravated by the fact that traditional means of incomes are threatened by the call for closure/minimalisation of factories, manufacturing plants and energy utilities – oil is bad, coal is bad, CO² is bad, methane is bad, flatulence is bad, meat is bad, mercury is bad, sugar is bad, cholesterol is bad, obesity is bad, paper is bad, planes are bad, motor vehicles are bad, smoking is bad, fertiliser is bad, et al.

The above-mentioned commodities supply a large percentage of workers with employment/wages on a global basis.

The call for cleaner and renewable energy utilities is adding to this woe for most of the proposed renewable energy generating theories require little human intervention and hands-on skills (not labour intensive); and are expensive to boot.

Developed countries are being asked to provide assistance (money) to developing countries so that they too can implement ‘earth saving’ initiatives. This in itself is seemingly the-proper-thing-to-do, but the underlying catch is that it’s the tax-payers living in the developed countries that will have to foot this noble expense. It must be said that altruism and charity, although seemingly noble, do not fix the underlying problem(s).

So yes, global warming and climate change is a reality of life on earth. It has been for countless of centuries and nothing we do will stave off that inevitably. And yes, our contribution to that ‘inevitably’ can also be counted and measured. And yes, many proposals have been put forward by pundits and activists alike – some more aggressively than others, to what needs and must be done to put off that ‘inevitably.’

What most do not want to take-in is that the problem is not that simple to solve. Those that are at the forefront of the war for change, are mostly gainfully employed or living of the welfare of others, or living on some plot of land (usually wrongly occupied or left behind as an inheritance) growing their own meagre crops feeding themselves and their offspring: close to nature, so to speak.

What most also do not take in is that there are factors outside the control of the veritable human being viz. Volcanic eruptions, solar flare-ups, earth’s passage through the galaxy/universe, moving tectonic plates, etc, that add to the ‘inevitably’ equation.

The ‘legacy’ issue also plays an emotive role in the whole cry for survival i.e. what of the future of my children, what about the poor animals, etc.

And then there is technology; another detractor.

Technology has provided a portion of the human race with tools that have made the acquisition of knowledge easier and cheaper. Technology has also provided a portion of the human race with powers that were previously not easily enacted i.e. freedom of expression (good and bad,) global empathy (good and bad,) power to circumvent despotism, cyber anarchy, etc.

Technology has also provided a portion of the human race with feelings on invincibility and immortality i.e. blogs will live long after one has expired, I can say what I like to whom I like without fear of physical consequence, the power of anonymity, governmental/corporate feel-good marketing campaigns, etc.

And not forgetting the power that technology has granted the giants of human-thought-manipulation i.e. the media, the swaying of public opinion, bending of outcomes to suit a given objective, popularising a certain way of life, sensationalising a happening for the sake of profit, etc.

I have over the past years made it my business to follow the reasoning behind the global warming malady by reading, watching, researching and pensively thinking about the issue at hand (from both sides of the spectrum.) I have also, in view of the few points mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, tried to formulate an opinion that encompasses the problem as a whole, without going off the activist deep-end.

My take on the problems facing the required ‘global warming’ mindset change always comes back to one glaring point: economics. What happens to the petrol industry workers when the petrol plants are done away with? What happens to the meat farmers when people minimalise eating meat? What happens to the livestock when people discontinue feeding on them? What happens to the pilots when people minimise flying? What happens to the motor vehicle industry workers when motor vehicle manufacture is minimised or done away with?

Thus in essence, solve the economics of living and the problem at hand is minimised!

Although the predicament of the human-inflicted global warming danger is a growing one, being self-centred and antagonistic in forcing people to change their sceptical fearful mindsets will not change the internal motivational drives of the human being.

The needs and wants of the people need to be addressed and pacified. Workable solutions have to be constructed in such a way that either alternative gainful employment is generally guaranteed or, that a new means of income generation is devised i.e. doing away with the traditional capitalist way of doing business.

Irrespective of what is said and done, my overriding opinion is that the inevitable will happen and that no amount of political posturing and or activist will and or new-age bluster will change that ‘inevitably.’

It is the now-or-later scenario that remains on the table.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “Global Warming: A Growing Woe”

  1. rogueoperator Says:

    I commend you for acknowledging that environmentalists have no real-world solutions capable of fixing “climate change,” manmade or otherwise.

    I take friendly issue with your assessment that the ‘capitalist system’ needs a makeover. On the contrary, it is precisely because the market system has been made over through state domination and institutionalized corruption that there are so many flaws in the system.

    Just to clarify, I don’t believe free market capitalism is perfect, because I believe no system of human relations is perfect. But the bedrock principle of capitalism, the mutual exchange of value for value, when observed, leads to civility in human affairs, honesty and fairness in economic dealings, and stability in the political system.

    The reason free market capitalism leads to civility in human affairs is because, first of all, individuals are respected as individuals. By this I mean, they are not seen as means to an end. By extension, individuals need consent before they engage in labor or give up the fruits of their labor.

    While Kant might deride this state of human affairs as “social unsociability,” it is greatly more to be desired for the majority of people than a state of affairs where mobs are being whipped up into unreasonable fervors, which are usually steered by demagogues to achieve the ends of dictators. While the social aesthetic of reasonability, self-control, and ‘calmness’ in human affairs might not satisfy passionate minds who yearn for transcendancy, over reality, perhaps over metaphysical death, the truth is that most men find value in intimate family relations, having a successful and prosperous career, and enjoying modest pleasures.

    Secondly, capitalism is an honest form of economy. While it is often argued by the left that work in the capitalist system is tantamount to exploitation of the working class, in fact, the wages for labor are dictated by the market value of someone’s labor. The market thus directs and redirects individuals, in the absence of statist intervention, to pursue employment avenues most valued by other individuals, as demonstrated by the willingness of others to pay for their services. In other words, people are incentivized, but not dictated, by the values of society, as opposed to under socialistic economies, nominally democratic or otherwise, where a cadre of elites determine the economy in accordance with their preferences.

    One might ask oneself a question: Under what state-dominated economy has the means of production been used to increase the general happiness of the people by innovating new conveniences on their behalf? On the contrary, statist economies are parasitical on capitalist economies for technological innovations that tangibly improve people’s lives. The modus operandi of statist economies is to preserve the status quo, so that elites are not challenged from below.

    Capitalism is predicated on volunteerism, and not on any actual coercion, beyond the coercion of having to work in order to live. Work itself is not coercion, but is as necessary to sustaining human life, as hunting is for any carnivore, or grazing is for any herbivore.

    Finally, capitalism, through its reverence for private property, all but dead in present-day America, and esteem for mutual exchange, forestalls tyranny to a ruling class. It is the only known economic system compatible with social spontaneity and freedom of expression. That is hasn’t been observed by the state is the reason for so much instability, and why the economy is such a rancorous issue between both parties. Neither should have control of the economy. We should have control of it, and that necessarily means private property and mutual exchange of value for value.

    Best regards, RO

  2. Why Capitalism Does Not Need a “Makeover” « Rogue Operator Says:

    […] encountered a blog post “Global Warming: A Growing Woe” and felt compelled to respond, because the author is obviously well-intentioned, but might […]

  3. jawellnofine Says:

    Thanks RO for the enlightening commentary to which I am in agreement with.

    I must say that while I am no economist, my beef with the system stems from exactly the viewpoint you put across – interference by the state and others wanting to manipulate the system to their controlling whims.

    I recently listened to a discourse by renowned academic David Harvey on RSAnimate (www.thersa.org) where he expounds the dying virtues of capitalism and proposes a few modifications to the system. Ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g&feature=relmfu
    But the main purpose in writing the article was to try and explain that there are no “real-world solutions capable of fixing ‘climate change,’ manmade or otherwise.”

    Most will shout about climate-change or global-warming but will avoid the issue of money with a passion. It is all interlinked. One cannot change the one without the other thus, to my mind, the enviro activists also are in need of a mindset change.

  4. m082844 Says:

    I like the topic of economics, but it’s not the problem — if one exists. And if a problem does exist, it will be technology that will help us solve it like it has solve all of life’s relevant problems so far — how do I get from A to B faster; how can I communicate from A to B; how can I cure contagion A or B; how can I build A or B stronger; how can I…? You get the idea.

    “We mostly all work for a living because of that culture…”

    -And because the alternative is death. How else do you expect to live unless you work to achieve life sustaining values? In a more developed free-market system (ours in a mixed-economy; another topic for another conversation) there are other jobs that produce other values that lead less directly to the sustainment of life and more towards a fulfilling and happy life – e.g. music producer. However, the basic values must be established and produced first on an efficient mass scale before other more complex values can be attained from those who are free to pursue such values. You’ll notice things of luxury which only the rich were able to afford eventually (for the most part) be items common to all who are willing to work – e.g. cell phones.

    “The accepted capitalist system is devoid of emotion and empathy…”

    -Yes I think this is true, but you assume (without explaining how) emotion and empathy motivating a non-living entity is possible and necessary to achieve whatever you consider to be the “good”. Be careful of seeking the award for having the most emotional argument, you may achieve it… at the expense of being rational.

    “The above-mentioned commodities [your global warming/evil check list] supply a large percentage of workers with employment/wages on a global basis.”

    -And your list supplies them directly with life sustaining values, or other values that contribute indirectly.

  5. rogueoperator Says:

    “Just to clarify, I don’t believe free market capitalism is perfect, because I believe no system of human relations is perfect. But the bedrock principle of capitalism, the mutual exchange of value for value, when observed, leads to civility in human affairs, honesty and fairness in economic dealings, and stability in the political system. ”

    Mo, on second thought, I think you’re right. This is not a good way to make the point I had in mind. A system can be perfect, but human beings are always in danger of making wrong decisions or engaging in immoral behavior. Whether or not there is a perfect “system” is not really an applicable point. I should scrap the concept of perfect and imperfect system, it is in a way, a strawman argument.

    Cheers, RO

  6. jawellnofine Says:

    Hi Guys

    I find it interesting that both comments use finances as their response motive.

    Like I have stated, I am no economist and do not proclaim to have answers to what ails the system.

    I wrote the article merely trying to expound the supposition that no amount of environmentalism will solve the problem of global warming/climate change without first sorting out the financial implications involved with living life as we presently know it.

    I used technology as an example of detraction: most humans are so busy downloading, uploading, viewing, playing and interacting online that they forget that there are bigger issues plaguing our way of life.

    I have read various articles on alternatives to our present economic system that made sense to my non-economic mind and have used them from time-to-time in articles i.e. The Poor Be Damned.

    While I fully agree with both comments as to the human interaction with capitalism I am a little skeptical as to the present day assertion that the system works and that human must stop interfering with it – it is a human construct after all. I battle to see the fairness in allowing a huge portion of the global society to battle making a living, just because the system does not allow for it (no emotion and empathy.)

    Yes, there is more to the above ‘fairness’ precept than meets the eye i.e. despotism, socialism, covert tyranny, manipulation for self-gain, greed, etc, but I only see a successful way forward if and when the capitalist system is overhauled or brought back to its roots i.e. throwing away surplus food because it would otherwise impact on the world economy while many go hungry just does not make sense.

    Regards

Leave a comment