Comments on: Holding the Poor Hostage http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4377 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: mt http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4377&cpage=1#comment-9659 mt Wed, 16 Apr 2008 02:25:00 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4377#comment-9659 I don't get it. OK, so this fund amounts to about ten cents per person in less developed countries. So presumably only a small subset of the population can collect against it. Presumably to make a claim that is larger than ten cents one would have to claim material damages as a direct consequence of climate change. For instance, attributing this severe drought or that severe storm to climate change as opposed to weather. Presumably everyone involved at the present scale understands the category error implicit in such a claim. Is the purpose of the fund to remain unclaimed, then, thereby "disproving" anthropogenic climate change? My understanding of adaptation is that it happens after you know what has happened. You can't really adapt to a hypothetical. I suppose there's some sense to a sort of global disaster fund, and I have no trouble with it being adminstered by the World Bank, myself. I just don't know what it might have to do with "adaptation". I don't know the details of the matter being discussed here, so I'm just guessing. But. It's not hard to imagine that this is a matter of funds that would have been allocated anyway being labeled as "climate related". We have already seen this trick in climate science. It's easy to imagine it being used in climate policy. I don’t get it.

OK, so this fund amounts to about ten cents per person in less developed countries. So presumably only a small subset of the population can collect against it.

Presumably to make a claim that is larger than ten cents one would have to claim material damages as a direct consequence of climate change. For instance, attributing this severe drought or that severe storm to climate change as opposed to weather.

Presumably everyone involved at the present scale understands the category error implicit in such a claim. Is the purpose of the fund to remain unclaimed, then, thereby “disproving” anthropogenic climate change?

My understanding of adaptation is that it happens after you know what has happened. You can’t really adapt to a hypothetical.

I suppose there’s some sense to a sort of global disaster fund, and I have no trouble with it being adminstered by the World Bank, myself. I just don’t know what it might have to do with “adaptation”.

I don’t know the details of the matter being discussed here, so I’m just guessing. But. It’s not hard to imagine that this is a matter of funds that would have been allocated anyway being labeled as “climate related”. We have already seen this trick in climate science. It’s easy to imagine it being used in climate policy.

]]> By: docpine http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4377&cpage=1#comment-9658 docpine Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:15:42 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4377#comment-9658 I also tried to access and don't have a subscription, and also couldn't find anything in a cursory examination of the websites of the groups that were quoted. I guess it remains a mystery until more facts are public. I also tried to access and don’t have a subscription, and also couldn’t find anything in a cursory examination of the websites of the groups that were quoted. I guess it remains a mystery until more facts are public.

]]> By: lucia http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4377&cpage=1#comment-9657 lucia Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:33:42 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4377#comment-9657 Stentor-- Is the argument against the World Bank involvement? I have some sympathy for that; though I would like to read more to decide about this specific program. Or is the argument against the idea of building coal fired plants no matter how they may be financed. (This isn't a rhetorical question. I try not to ask those. :) Roger's climatewire link requires a subscription, as it's only a trial subscription and expires, I'm not going through the hassel to see if they have the answer to the question I seek.) Stentor–
Is the argument against the World Bank involvement? I have some sympathy for that; though I would like to read more to decide about this specific program.

Or is the argument against the idea of building coal fired plants no matter how they may be financed.

(This isn’t a rhetorical question. I try not to ask those. :) Roger’s climatewire link requires a subscription, as it’s only a trial subscription and expires, I’m not going through the hassel to see if they have the answer to the question I seek.)

]]> By: Paul Biggs http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4377&cpage=1#comment-9656 Paul Biggs Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:31:03 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4377#comment-9656 Well, until there is a viable alternative to fossil fuels - it is common sense to choose energy over energy poverty. There is nuclear, but FoE don't like that either. Coal plants are much cleaner and more efficient than they used to be, and of course, CO2 is a harmless gas to which climate has a low sensitivity, unless anyone can prove otherwise. Well, until there is a viable alternative to fossil fuels – it is common sense to choose energy over energy poverty. There is nuclear, but FoE don’t like that either.

Coal plants are much cleaner and more efficient than they used to be, and of course, CO2 is a harmless gas to which climate has a low sensitivity, unless anyone can prove otherwise.

]]> By: Stentor http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4377&cpage=1#comment-9655 Stentor Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:29:06 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4377#comment-9655 From the part you've quoted (I can't get through to the full thing), it doesn't sound like they're taking issue with adaptation per se. They're taking issue with *the World Bank being the institution managing the adaptation funds.* The coal plant in India is just a poster child for the WB's long, and well-known on the left, record of poor environmental decision-making. Maybe FOE's actual desire is to ignore adaptation. But the argument they're making about institutional trust/competence is one that can be accepted even by someone who accepts the importance of adaptation. From the part you’ve quoted (I can’t get through to the full thing), it doesn’t sound like they’re taking issue with adaptation per se. They’re taking issue with *the World Bank being the institution managing the adaptation funds.* The coal plant in India is just a poster child for the WB’s long, and well-known on the left, record of poor environmental decision-making. Maybe FOE’s actual desire is to ignore adaptation. But the argument they’re making about institutional trust/competence is one that can be accepted even by someone who accepts the importance of adaptation.

]]> By: lucia http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4377&cpage=1#comment-9654 lucia Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:33:59 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4377#comment-9654 The solution to this dilemma is obvious. We should give them *more* money and build a nuclear plant instead! :) The solution to this dilemma is obvious. We should give them *more* money and build a nuclear plant instead! :)

]]> By: Paul Biggs http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4377&cpage=1#comment-9653 Paul Biggs Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:04:30 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4377#comment-9653 "Why can't these groups support adaptation and clean energy at the same time, rather than placing them in opposition?" You have to ask!? Because the agenda they are really following has nothing to do with climate or clean energy. “Why can’t these groups support adaptation and clean energy at the same time, rather than placing them in opposition?”

You have to ask!?

Because the agenda they are really following has nothing to do with climate or clean energy.

]]>