RSS

Why are well-considered, thoughtful analyses often discarded for nonsensical, non-analytical rhetoric? Typically, the simple interpretation is that the moneyed lobbyists hijacked the debate. But, why is the public buying into this nonsense? Why are people so ready to support policy that is demonstratively not in their best interests? Have the utility calculations of welfare economics suddenly become defunct? Has mass-delusion overtaken considered rationality? Is there something in the water? In the air? What is going on here?

One current example of failed policy discourse is that regarding the bio-physical reality of climate change: global warming is predominantly man-made. Supposedly rational humans, who otherwise should be concerned for their survival, are completely disregarding the inevitable cost of using the earth’s atmosphere as a sink for carbon (and other GHGs) emissions. The science on climate change is about as solid today as the quantum physics used to build the first atomic weapon, demonstrated at the Trinity test on July 16, 1945, was at that time. Yet, today, there is still a debate whether the science is solid; and no Manhattan Project has yet emerged to mitigate the carbon climate war between 'business as usual' and doing something different.

Instead, climate change is just another policy challenge scattered among many urgent and pressing issues in the US such as health care reform, the $9 trillion ten-year government deficit, arguing for regulatory changes to address the 2008 financial meltdown of Wall Street that cost almost $50 trillion in losses worldwide, the collapse of the US automobile manufacturing industry, the escalation of the unnecessary and destructive war in Afghanistan, developing a strategy for extracting the US from the never-ending war in Iraq, expanding the covert war in Pakistan, securing cyberspace, creating new jobs to reduce unemployment, etc.

There is no apparent prioritization as to what is more and less important. Furthermore, given a finite amount of capital, budgets have no analytical basis for deciding where the highest return for investments might be obtained, or even how much capital is required to actually adequately address any given problem.

What is particularly alarming is that business-as-usual urgency regularly takes precedent over the important issue of climate change. For America, that means the business of wars. Including the cost of the plans to escalate the Af-Pak War, the US will spend almost $1 trillion out of a world-wide expenditure of $1.5 trillion on its military-related activities in the 2010 fiscal year. It takes a lot of capital for America to maintain two ongoing wars and over 700 military bases located in 120 countries around the world, staffed by 2.5 million personnel. However, the global trend is to spend ever increasing amounts on military-based national defense. In the past 64 years, collectively the world spent around $60 trillion (in today's dollars) on military defense. The majority of this was spent in the wholly unproductive and supremely dangerous arms race between the US and the former Soviet Union.

From a capital allocation perspective, let’s pretend that the world has only $60 trillion in discretionary capital to spend over the next 64 years. We have two choices: continue spending this capital on military defense, or alternatively, spend this same amount of capital on solving the carbon emissions/climate change problem. Which choice will be made? If one examines rationally the consequential and catastrophic risks associated with each choice, there is simply no contest. One investment stream leads to more death and destruction, the other leads to at least a fighting chance to continue life as we presently know it on this earth. Hard choice?

My claim is that it is a hard choice. It’s a hard choice because non-rationality, not post-Enlightenment rationality, more and more, is ruling the day and overwhelming rational discourse concerning policy decisions.

For an in-depth discussion on irrational policy behaviour in the US, please click here.

Lyle Brecht is business development adviser, social entrepreneur and President of the Blue Heron Group.

Related Material on Atlantic Community:

• Milessaratos/Slabbert: Wanted: A Campaign for Global Technological Innovation
  
• Jakob von Weizsäcker: Greening the Debt
• Scott Michael Moore: A Multidimensional Approach for a Planet in Peril
  

December 23, 2009

chris poelker

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

I think the author is rather naive when he says that global warming is more of a threat than military concerns. A weapon of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist would do far more harm than the temperature going up by less than one degree centigrade.

December 23, 2009

Marie-France Boucher , University of Ottawa , (4)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

To answer to M. Poelker,

The author did not even mention terrorists nor WMD in his article. This is not even the point of the argument. We are not talking about terrorists but about the two wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan which, as we know today, do not hold WMD. The author puts emphasis on the fact that those wars are unproductive and dangerous. Actually, your answer to this article demonstrate exactly what this author is deploring: "nonsensical, non-analytical rhetoric".

Moreover, it has now been scientifically proven that an increase of only one degree centigrade would have major repercussions on the ecosystem, especially on sea-level lands.

Apart from that, I think that the author asked the right questions in his articles and I wish more people would also reflect upon that thema.

December 23, 2009

chris poelker

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

To answer Marie-France Boucher,
I appereciate the response to my point, but the only problem I have is that how are you going to deal with terrorists without the means to fight them? These people will not just throw up their hands and surrender.

December 23, 2009

chris poelker

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

I would argue with the scientist that this is settled science also. Many scientist do not believe that the warming is caused by human activity. Also, as we see with climategate, scientists are not beyond creating there own results to further a political agenda of socialism.

December 23, 2009

Paul Heinila

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

I’m so very glad that it did not happen. We did not give a bag of money to Mr. Robert Mugabe, of Zimbabwe to waste.
Mr. Lyle Brecht is possibly bitter because in Copenhagen we also denied the money bag from Mr. Brecht.
But we are spending money, lot of money and are changing our lifestyle greener.
We are already driving smaller and more efficient cars, generating electricity without petrochemicals.
We are traveling less and are expecting our leaders do the same.
Recycle is a every day household world.

December 24, 2009

E. Nakano, , Bronze Contributor (11)

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

In response to the question of why so many Americans are willing to support policies that are not in their best interests: many of the people I know - including those I consider the most intelligent - are not in the business of weighing information carefully, particularly with regards to controversial issues. Rather, they are driven to the news outlets and media personalities (who often substitute opinion for fact) which they know will reinforce their inclinations. I listen to the other side regularly (admittedly, often not by choice, but because I have close acquaintances who are swept up in the Religious Right), and I have to say those news outlets tend to have fantastic rhetoric. They seem to define issues so definitively, the need to personal investigation seems not only unnecessary, but pleasingly time saving.
Finally, with the financial crisis and the contentious attempted restructuring of the health system, the American people are increasingly apt to view other drastic changes that necessitate further investment with suspicion. The expression I most often hear is: "We have enough on our plate as it is." The vigor with which climate change is approached fluctuates, often seeming to be not a constant, but tied to how well the economy is doing. This short-term rationality is the same attitude for which politicians are often skewered.

December 24, 2009

Rudolf Georg Linner, Hans und Rudolf Linner OHG, (2)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Answer to Mr. Poelker

There is no interdependence between both threats, so logically there is no alternating choice - as your comment indirectly puts it. We have to deal with both threats simultaneously. A major difference between both issues is: to fight climate change is also in the hands of the individuals who participate in the western life style. (A radical change there would almost solve the problem.) To fight terrorists the individuals have to delegate to military forces and secret services. This could be one reason why people tend to put climate change further down the list.

I have many sympathies with the points Mr. Brecht has made. But the opinion article has an inherent weakness: complaints and unanswered questions. To me, the way the majority of the western world acts is totally understandable - but not acceptable at all. If people would be taught already in school to radically use and develop SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE the situation would be quite different! But it is not taught in school and at the moment the world relies on what is “naturally grown” in individuals who are around in too small numbers maybe.

I am planning to write an article on this topic, but it will take me a lot of effort anyways and it will be hard to contain my thoughts in 700 words …

December 27, 2009

Marie Claude

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=6435

It would be more rational to digg into Al Qaida bases than into the net programs for global warming

December 28, 2009

Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (522)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

The constant mantra is that the debate over Global Warming is settled. This is not necessarily so. While most scientists do adhere to the notion that global warming exists and is related to man's own activities, our historical perception is limited. It is ambiguous enough that while action should be taken, that action should be very pragmatic.

To take decisions that will have a draconian impact on the global economy is not wise. America, Europe, and the "wealthy" won't even be the ones most harmed by cap and trade and other prospective emission control regimes. It will be the world's poorest and hungriest. They will suffer and they will die as the economy slows down (further than it already has in the wake of the financial crisis) and as food production and distribution also slow down.

I do not believe doing nothing is an option. Further investment in technologies that can wean the industrialized (and industrializing) world from fossil fuels and carbon emission is correct. In fact, the investments should probably be far larger than they are. A "Manhattan Project" that could be global, with a certain percentage of GDP placed into an internationally administered pool of money where the best ideas would recieve somethink akin to venture capital seems a good place to start.

While there would be obvious issues that would have to be resolved regarding how funding is distributed and corrpution avoided, the concept of providing seed money seems wise and plausible. A command and control imposed solution only increases the likelihood of corruption on a high scale, probably even worse than any prospective corruption involved in administering the "venture capital" (can you imaging the market bubbles emerging from cap and trade emission credits?). Also, the global nuclear energy boon should be pushed far more aggressively by the United States (though security must remain a consideration).

By all means, let's deal with global warming. But let's do it by freeing the minds of todays Einsteins and Oppenheimers and giving them real opportunities to find, develop, and market new solutions.

Tags: | global warming,copenhagen |

December 28, 2009

Lyle Brecht

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Herman Kahn used to argue that there were three kinds of problems in the world: (1) those that are insoluble by human intervention; (2) those that are made worse by human intervention; and (3) those that are solvable by timely and sufficient human intervention.

My argument is that the ‘problem’ of national defense is an insoluble problem as presently stated. It is also expensive (~$60,000 billion in current dollars consumed over the past 64-years). Essentially, we are playing a game [of national defense] that represents a zombie situation (i.e. the game is unwinnable). Thus, it is stupid to continue playing this game, as constellated.

Unlike the game of national defense, the ‘problem’ of global warming is soluble. That one engages in this enterprise does not depend whether it is a resultant of either natural or man-made forces. It is occurring. It is happening with great rapidity. It is unbelievably expensive in its impact on the world's economies. Significant reallocation of capital is required to adequately address this problem adequately in a timely fashion. The consequential systemic risk is very, very large. I would argue that a responsible calculation of this systemic risk (probabilistic forecast of occurrence and consequences, reduced to an estimated economic value) would be greater than that risk associated with either future conventional wars or potential unconventional (e.g. terrorist) violence.

Thus, from a systemic risk perspective, if we are willing to support policies that result in the expenditure of ~$60,000 billion over the next 64-years for ‘national defense’ as presently constellated, we should also be willing to support an equal or greater allocation of capital for the amelioration and mitigation of the very real, economic costs of global warming.

This, of course, serves to illuminate the faulty thinking of present policy. It is unlikely that the world’s economy is able to support two equally strategic initiatives of ~$60,000 billion each over the next 64-years. Either future policy initiatives will continue to be ruled by non-analytical reasoning, convention (what has happened in the past serves as the primary guide to future choices; the world is ruled by stationarity), and convenient, often self-serving rhetoric, or conversely, sound analysis and considered, rational policies choices will begin to rule the day. If the ‘problem’ of global warming is to be addressed adequately in a timely fashion, the question on the table is: “Which shall we choose?”

Tags: | lyle brecht | consequential risk | global warming | climat echange | national security |

December 29, 2009

ANTHONY TERHAAR

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

In America, we have a good commercial ,,, goes something like this:

We hold these trues to be self evident

That all men are created equial

with liberty an justice for all
The reality is .... money in the hands of the rich influenteul of America

keeps its hand over the mouth of the 70% to 90% of

Americans who work an live on less than thirty thousand

a year. Try to call the RUSH limbough show an see if he

or any of his co horts will give a sincere conversation.

If you want to say something in America, you have the

right to do so, for only a small fee of ,,, perhaps...

100,000. dollars per minute.

Capitalism in America is not much better than chinese communism

Sincerely yours...anthony

butlergeneral1@yahoo.com

December 29, 2009

Unregistered User

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

My comment: the article is good. but Many of us in America are not well enough inform

to know how serious global warming is

December 29, 2009

Bernhard Lucke, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Platinum Contributor (531)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Indeed a very good article, which nicely illustrates the ongoing battle between enlightment and the more emotional forces determining human behaviour. But isn't the answer in the end very simple: it is all about the share of resources that every human group on this planet gets?

In my opinion, the religious issues connected witht the rise of terrorism only mask the underlying conflict between those who have and those who do not have.

Jared Diamond convincingly demonstrated in his book "The third Chimpansee" how behavioural patterns of the human ape can be compared with the animal kingdom, and I think some conclusions can be drawn for our ongoing problems. To defend ourselves against threats, a successfull behavioural strategy was building arms. Unfortunately climate change is not as easy to grasp as a horde of hungry wolves in the vicinity, but there is an atmosphere of threat. In such an atmosphere, in stone age it worked well to store lots of arms and raid the neighbouring village in order to add their resources to your own stock, which successfully increased your chances to survive a long winter. I'd say this pattern is still active.

You need the idea of an enemy to motivate humans, someone to blame, since humans rarely dare taking responsibility for their deeds - especially if they are as abstract as climate change. It is much easier to motivate them to attack minority groups than to convince them to change their own behaviour, acknowledge error, and sacrifice something. Just look at the history of minorities, for example the Jews. I would not wonder if in the future, when climate change did its irreversible damage, someone will discover that a Jewish conspiracy caused it.

Right now, the perfect solution would be to blame the terrorists for climate change. But unfortunately, the situation is the other way round, and killing terrorists won't stop CO2 emissions. In fact, the terrorists may in the future convincingly claim that climate change was god's wrath which destroyed the evil western civilisations. Our hunger for resources and the way how we use up this planet will probably seen as a kind of destructive cancer by impoverished future generations.

Unfortunately humans still act not rationally. I think that climate change can only be fought successfully when the first major damages are so obvious that no one can deny them. Then it is probably too late to preserve our current life - but even then, a climate change awareness campaign will probably only be successful if it uses pictures and personas like in the ancient pantheon of gods. And finds someone to blame, who takes responsibility and shoulders the sins of mankind.

December 29, 2009

Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (522)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

I tend to agree with a good portion of Mr. Lucke's analysis. Humans definitely do not act rationally much of the time. I think his point reinforces my suggestion that we look to serious, but less intrusive mechanisms for addressing global warming, such as the venture capital idea for new technologies and a crash course in nuclear expansion.

If we can limit the economic pain of dealing with the problem, it becomes much more palatable politically and more possible. If, on the other hand, we try to ram down the throat of the industrialized world (especially the U.S.) policies that will weaken the economy further than it already is, there will be a backlash that could set back any progress much more. Again, the abstract desolation of a possible future will not mean much to people struggling in the moment. This is often lost on academics and theoreticians, but ever present for political leaders with actual responsibility.

I know that all those who warn of the looming apocalyptic scenarios will argue that the time for mere pragmatism has passed, but their solutions will fail all the more spectacularly if not tempered by more realism.

Tags: | global warming,copenhagen |

December 30, 2009

Lyle Brecht, Blue Heron Group, Bronze Contributor (11)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

A number of commenters have intimated that rational choice theory, the basis for much of what goes on in 'free markets', as well as the conceptual basis of nuclear deterrence policy, is in question is exactly the problem. Is this problem soluble? My argument is that this problem must be soluble if our species is to survive and prevail.

But, climate change may be only one of the many forcing functions that is presented to the human race to solve with this new rationality during this 21st century. The other big problem that we are aware of at the present is nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. [My thoughts on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament are at http://www.scribd.com/doc/16490356/]

Commenters have rightly posited that terrorism is actually a symptom of structural issues w/ the global economy and the political disenfranchisement of convenient 'others' with whom we may disagree as to what should constitute reality. [My thoughts on terrorism are at http://scribd.com/doc/9776295]

Tags: | lyle brecht | climate change | Copenhagen | nuclear nonproliferation | terrorism |

December 30, 2009

Chen Sheng, Wesleyan College, (4)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

This is a great article. I appreciate it that Mr. Brecht has pointed out the paradoxical fact: on the one hand, ignore environmental problems and spend tons of dollars on national security (including WMDs) is not in our interests as human beings; on the other hand, there is no rational for any single nation to take the step, cut military expenses, and put the money on environmental issues.

Many scholars argue that the environmental problems today are evidence of "the tragedy of commons". However, I think that Dr. Ostrom's Nobel-Prize-winning "analysis of economic governance, especially the commons" very interesting. She found that the local people whose life depends on the nature can make a great contribution to protect the environment just with more communication among them. I remember she said that the locals knew lots of things that PH.Ds do not know and might never find from books.

I believe that the conflict between national interests for individual states and the common interests shared by states all over the world can be resolved by the power of people. What we can do is more than forming public opinion to influence public policy; individuals can work together to make things happen, as Dr. Ostrom found from her research. It will be even better with NGOs' participation.

The tension between national interest and the commons will always be there; realists will always argue for national security and economic growth but not environmental issues. However, we will be able to shift the force to the environment side more by believing in the power of common people, the cooperation of individuals, and the fact that we can make things happen!

December 31, 2009

E. Nakano, , Bronze Contributor (11)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

While I appreciate - and to some extend agree with - the sentiment stated several times herein for the need to trust in ordinary citizens to act on environmental issues, I believe the research, influence, and political prowess of learned individuals and elected officials are important elements in spearheading legislation or informal movements that might affect change. There may be growing distrust toward people in such positions, but scholarly research and or the contributions of individuals who have years of work on particular issues still hold weight in public opinion, and are very often the backbone of the local movements touched upon by Ms. Sheng.
Furthermore, in order to get these local movements and individual entrepreneurs (like those mentioned by Mr. Lawson) up and running, the efforts of these scholars and elected officials are needed to open up the necessary avenues and create the incentives that will stimulate interest among intelligent minds and wealthy backers. These incentives needn't last forever, but like the tax breaks that first encouraged investment in wind power, for example, they can aid in the creation of ground-breaking projects and technologies that otherwise would have received little attention or support.

January 4, 2010

Marek Swierczynski, journalist at TVN24, Diamond Contributor (1102)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

The choice between spending large amounts of money for the military or for the climate change mitigation, however attractive in the era of the climate-change debate, is false. This is not an alternative to solve the same problem. National security and defense will still be needed even if we relocate our resources on large scale towards the climate change mitigation initiatives. While it's largely agreeable that the costs of catastrophic weather events related to the climate change will be huge and are probably underestimated today, the costs of regional or global wars that may occur if the military spending policies are drastically changed may also be shockingly high. Nevermind a vision of a terrorist blowing up an airliner once a fortnight - it is much more persuasive than whatever climate change catastrophy ever forseen. One just does not believe that Manhattan could be wiped out by a rising waters of the Atlantic, but it was proved that a symbolic part of Manhattan could be wiped out by a terrorist strike. Of course it is a subject for a separate debate whether military spending worldwide is correctly addressed - for instance to stop terrorism acts - and it could be argued it ought to be better addressed. But there is no alternative between climate and defense and never will be.

Tags: | false alternative | Military | climate |

January 6, 2010

sara galimberti, universita degli studi di Milano, (2)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

"We have two choices: continue spending this capital on military defense, or alternatively, spend this same amount of capital on solving the carbon emissions/climate change problem."I agree with the author, the matters are somehow alternative. I would say that for sure we know climate change will reduce the earth to bad conditions in a not so distant future on one hand, on the other hand scientists warn us about the gravity of health problems too; so we have certainty about environment ans social risks we run, nonethelss states go on undervaluing the problem, just reducing percentage of gas emissions to low standards for example; instead of fighting deep the problem they tend to melt society with it as capitalism, production,defense, more and more investments in high technologies- again to encrease the role of an not needed production - take a relevant role, higher than what it should be, more then real improvement of life conditions require.
On the other hand we dont have certainty about the risk we run on terrorism, the spectrum of WMDs is not real so there is not the need of continuous investments in sending army, or is this a war of oil and capital- no news- rather then of terrorism?; invest in security is important but that's not the main solution, in my opinion the battle of fundamentalism is not won on destruction and on power. Rather good investments base on redifining social priorities, giving the way to a more human society, invest in culture, readucate those integralist- and frustrated- cultures- where investment in environmental technologies plays a great role as well-;army is a frame.

Tags: | redifining bases society risk health environment |

January 9, 2010

Lyle Brecht

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

I am understanding the present dilemma as one more of political theology than of psychology, anthropology, science, politics, or international law as serially mentioned by different commentators:

For example, what if, the end-result of the disaster capitalism presently practiced by the largest corporations of the world and the major financial centers (see Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine), a particularly pernicious form of capitalism, is an economic cost of $200,000 billion (i.e. the cessation of much of the ecosystem services that underlie the global economy) due to abrupt climate change?

If that were to case, how many would still claim that capitalism, at least in its disaster (some call "casino") form is a viable philosophical premise for solving any human problem as the 'results' ultimately produce less less value (in terms of wealth created) than the 'cost' of this particular theological belief (treating the seeking after profits as a god to be pursued at all costs)?

But today, this may be the major, if not often hidden struggle, - between capitalism that is rationalized by utilitarianism (e.g. there are no alternatives!) and democracy which is defined less by one's ability to vote in an election, than by one's freedom to engage, without prejudice or diminishment, in discourse concerning liberty and ethical claims that lead to human rights.

From this perspective, democracy and capitalism are on divergent paths, set at odds with one another, and may necessarily lead to potentially vastly different outcomes with respect to climate change mitigation.

Tags: | Capitalism | democracy | climate change | global warming | political theology | lyle brecht |

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org