Comments 1 to 3:

1. nigelj at 07:03 AM on 26 May, 2019

   Regarding the excellent article "The UN calls for enlightened self interest...."

   Seems to be in very short supply.

   "the UN chief stressed that “climate change cannot be stopped by the small island countries alone, it has to be stopped by the rest of the world” and that this requires the political will for “transformational policies in energy, mobility, industry and agriculture”.

   So much has to be done in parallel. Who is supposed to lead the way?An uprising of school children seems to be the only thing happening. They are seeing the problem clearly, probably due to being taught the science and not brainwashed with the denialism like their parents. But its going to take more than kids protesting.

   "Mr. Guterres echoed the “three urgent messages” to world leaders that he had “consistently conveyed” throughout his visit to the Pacific, beginning with shifting taxes from salaries to carbon. “We need to tax pollution, not people,” he reiterated. "

   Yes taxing pollution is the economically sensible option, and may be viable in Europe, but carbon taxes are not proving popular in America even with a dividend scheme. All talk, no consensus, no action. It's due to taxes being regarded as a dirty word and the associated political tribalism that has developed.  And emissions trading schemes seem to be just as hard to get through congress.

   In America it might have to come back to something closer to the Green New Deal, where the government finances or subsidises climate related mitigation projects like the electricity generation and industry with deficit financing or money creation (Modern Monetary Theory is becoming a talking point lately). These things might be perceived to be less ideologically divisive and impactful on the public.

   We have seeen money creation with quantitative easing and it hasn't lead to problems. Given the GOP is happy to run high deficits, it's going to be hard for them to take the idea off the table. Some evidence is emerging that deficits and government debt are not as problematic as once thought (refer to the economist.com). Not saying I personally love this thinking, but its what this respected website is saying.

   "Second, he flagged that countries must stop subsidizing fossil fuels."
   Yes to that. Pure commonsense. But people like Donald Trump have done a great job of convincing (brainwashing) his core voters that such subsidies are good for them.

   0 0
2. nigelj at 08:03 AM on 26 May, 2019

   The relevant article from the economist.com. "Economists are rethinking fiscal policy". 

   You can get five free articles a month by registering.

   0 0
3. One Planet Only Forever at 08:42 AM on 27 May, 2019

   Here is an article from March this year that relates to the Editor's Pick this week. It is from the BBC Future section, dated March 19, 2019. "Why we need to reinvent democracy for the long-term"

   The problem of a lack of leadership interest in correcting harmful developments and developing sustainable improvements for the benefit of the future of humanity requires socioeconomic-political system change.

   Ethically and Morally, every future human deserves consideration (and future humans massively out-number any current day population). Based on 'proportional consideration (equality and fairness)' there would be no justification for any unsustainable or harmful pursuits of personal interest, especially pursuits that are detrimental to the future of humanity in ways than are worse than just reducing future access to non-renewable resources (burning buried ancient hydrocarbons reduces future access to that resource).

   Financial evaluations that discount future harm done then compare that reduced value (probably significantly low-balled before discounting), to evaluations of current day lost opportunities if the harm is not done (probably significantly over-estimated), is an example of improper consideration of impacts on the future.

   Sustainable activity being improved by the development of better sustainable activity is the required objective (achieving and improving on the Sustainable Development Goals). That means that Negative future consequences are simply unacceptable.

   Until that system correction is any developed perceptions of progress, including technological advances and supposed 'fixes' to developed problems, will continue to be fatally incorrect, just making the future worse.

   The recent surge of populist United Political Right groups is likely connected to an attempt by the greedier and less tolerant (more selfish) leadership (wealthy influential people) to impede the development of the required socioeconomic-political corrections. They want a Status-Quo that undoes much of the progress of humanity that has been occurring, and that resists any other Progressive improvements. Tragically, they are able to mobilize support from less fortunate desperate people who can collectively have influence.

   0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.