tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4413935813892441553.post674462224040536758..comments2024-03-29T00:30:39.262-05:00Comments on real economics: Climate change is a demand-side problemJonathan Larsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05217670446743983955noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4413935813892441553.post-69072111864559098952015-11-19T06:12:06.815-06:002015-11-19T06:12:06.815-06:00Great to see this post found really understanding ...Great to see this post found really understanding about global warming, I get another blog related to <a href="http://www.globalwarmingtimes.com" rel="nofollow">Global Weirding News</a> and Global Warming Newswhich have almost every news links for global warming.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01658470011228037771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4413935813892441553.post-22078292510002011022015-11-17T13:20:23.314-06:002015-11-17T13:20:23.314-06:00Had a conversation not to long ago with someone wh...Had a conversation not to long ago with someone who took issue with my contention that the reason climate change isn't being meaningfully addressed is because energy consumption is not an especially political problem. After listening for awhile I said, "Let us suppose that the heavens open and we get ourselves real leadership on the issue AND the $100 trillion to spend. We are still essentially at day one of a real solution. Not only do we need resources, we need honest, hard-working, highly-intelligent people to turn those resources into hardware that can power our societies without creating more CO2."<br /><br />So I agree—we simply cannot get hung up on money because it is, at best, a means to an end.Jonathan Larsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05217670446743983955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4413935813892441553.post-5097832816481335092015-11-17T11:40:33.348-06:002015-11-17T11:40:33.348-06:00I agree with you of course that climate change is ...I agree with you of course that climate change is a demand-side problem, and I agree with both of the assessments you offer: that the talks in Paris aren’t likely to deliver what the world needs; and climate change will “cost more” the longer we put it off.<br /><br />BUT I don’t agree with how money keeps getting granted the underlying presumption of being The Ruling Force of all life on earth and The Main Measure of all our problems. When it comes to talking about the facts of life (the future of life on earth and the rules by which we should live) we don’t wonder so much about who to believe -- what we should do by when, where, or why -- because most conversations are almost always about money in some way, like “How much is it going to cost?”<br /><br />So, until enough of us become poor enough and desperate enough to get beyond money as an issue, all we can do is go through the stages of our own demise (if we have time enough to think about it): first comes denial, then anger, then bargaining, depression, and acceptance; where climate change and money aren’t past denial yet, much less anger, and money (changers and printers of money, etc) will only bargain if forced. But forcing "money" to bargain will make it so depressed it would rather die than accept any changes...so the odds are truly against anyone who doesn’t already have a pile of money (or of keeping it if they do). (Elizabeth Kübler-Ross called it, “On Death and Dying;” Joseph Heller called it, “Catch-22.”)GPK SMEThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10844260976638167009noreply@blogger.com