Interesting. I like his honest, to-the-point approach.

For those that are interested he's basically parroting "The Economist" leader article on the issue.

>> ^bmacs27:
For those that are interested he's basically parroting "The Economist" leader article on the issue.


That surprises me, since he is an editor for Newsweek and is very much going off his writing in that publication. Can you provide the link?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Well put by Fareed. I forgive him for his savaging of Sicko.

I would down vote this video if I had me a damn bronze star!

Heres why:

Essentially, he is uttering rhetoric used by Green Capitalists. Throw money at it and things will fix themselves. The reason why this is bullshit, utter, utter bullshit is because Capitalism DIRECTLY influences our carbon emissions, and thus, the human agency in Climate Change.

Capitalism favors CONSTANT growth. No growth means no money gained. In fact, the very rise of the Bourgeoisie class came about from the opening of new markets from the Age of Exploration. New markets mean new demand, this increases production to meet this demand, this requires more factories, more resources used, further stress on the planet, more emissions.

Spending money with a form of insurance is ultimately a short term goal. Yes, countries kept in poverty by imperialist powers need some $$$ to push them past unsustainable practices, but they could get there themselves if Imperialist powers didn't have interest there already. Think about where we get our resources, where most goods are produced and manufactured. Think where they go, to us. Capitalism wants us to buy more. I feel like the connections are very easy to see.

Environmental destruction will continue unless the actual system is changed.

Ok monsieur regresso-Marx, I have some pretty fundamental problems with your thinking here.

First of all, I agree with Zizek when he says that we need to apply Marx to our current world, but you seem to be adopting a position that is untenable, MAINLY because of the ways in which you don't seem to be accounting for the ways in which capitalist ideology has radically changed. As a result, your well-found materialist charges against Zakaria's argument become insanely vulnerable (teetering on self-harming). For now, I would like to probe you a bit more on some of the points you bring up.

The reason why this is bullshit, utter, utter bullshit is because Capitalism DIRECTLY influences our carbon emissions, and thus, the human agency in Climate Change.

So I am unclear as to why this qualifies as an indictment. Are you sure it is capitalism, in and of itself, that is to blame here? You might think about industrialization as it occurs in the socialist context. It seems like what you are saying is merely this: capitalism is blind to its own violent core, and by trying to use its own means to clean up its own mess, its only acting in its own interest.

Point is, isn't this just merely self-regulation?

What is the alternative for me (someone who is for the time-being beholden to the rules of capital) in going against the destruction of the earth? Fact is, CORPORATIONS, in view of something like 'growth' and self-preservation, have really changed the game here, and have really done a lot to work towards reversing this process.

Capitalism favors CONSTANT growth. No growth means no money gained. In fact, the very rise of the Bourgeoisie class came about from the opening of new markets from the Age of Exploration. New markets mean new demand, this increases production to meet this demand, this requires more factories, more resources used, further stress on the planet, more emissions.

Please respond to this question: what if 'growth' as it occurs today, also occurs concomitantly with POSITIVE effects to the planet?

Also, please make 'growth' relevant to our neo-capitalist moment.

Spending money with a form of insurance is ultimately a short term goal. Yes, countries kept in poverty by imperialist powers need some $$$ to push them past unsustainable practices, but they could get there themselves if Imperialist powers didn't have interest there already. Think about where we get our resources, where most goods are produced and manufactured. Think where they go, to us. Capitalism wants us to buy more. I feel like the connections are very easy to see.

Why is it a short term goal if the idea is to fundamentally change the ways in which 'growth' affects the planet?

Environmental destruction will continue unless the actual system is changed.

Hmmm... i would usually agree with such a statement, had it not been preceded with such misguided nonsense. Tighten up your thinking, comrade.

My problem with this is that he says he is unsure about the nature and extent of global warming.

He then compares this carbon tax to house insurance. Well everybody knows the benefits of house insurance and anybody can make a clear assessment about the chances of their houses being burned down.

Personally if I was unsure about the nature and extent of fire then I wouldn't be jumping on the train to throw money at it. My own comparison which I find much more suitable would be the last media craze, the swine flu. I think most people were unsure about the nature and extent of this "would be catastrophic disease", I also think it's blatantly obvious now the H1N1 is much less harmful then common influenza. And the money that was spent on vaccines is ridiculous when you take this into account.

Is this comparison fair, probably not as most people already either support anything with the words "green" attached to it, or have some conspiracy theory to wail on about. But personally I don't put much weight in anything the MSM has to say these days. Apparently they make too much money selling fear to report anything accurate.

I'm sceptical about global warming, just like Fareed, but there are ways to promote alternative energy without once again making people empty their pockets to turn the lights on. California seems to know how. I would look to them before I looked to newscasts like these, and oppourtunists like Al Gore.

why is he hedging the bets on whether the data is in?

IT'S IN.

by the time we get to 9f degrees warmer, entire countries will disappear, most of the largest cities in the world will be uninhabitable, and our fragile modern civilization, dependent on transport, energy and natural resources, will break down completely. if we are lucky, humans will be living in medieval conditions in the few temperate places left on earth, trying to survive the constant weather super-disasters caused by the massive increase in atmospheric energy.

if we are NOT lucky, we will set off feedback loops: changing albedo, jet stream reversals, melting and decomposing permafrost, decreasing co2 absorption by plankton as the acidity of the ocean causes plankton co2 absorption to decrease (these effects have already been seen - plus who knows what might happen that we haven't even thought of). these could push the earth into a permanent greenhouse environment like jupiter, with surface temperatures of 900 degrees.

but god forbid a journalist should ruffle anyone's feathers. better play it safe

^ Correction. California used to know how. In the last 15 years they've shown that being "green" is simply the best way to tax people into the dirt and make businesses run out of state so fast that you're wondering why the average person can't find a job outside of selling street meat to tourists.

Am I the only one who thinks Fareed looks an awfully lot like Willem Dafoe?

there ya go tsquire1, one for the bronzies...

It seems to me that the super-heating of the ionosphere from Alaska with high voltage by the Navy and Raytheon may be able to convince the nay-sayers that the cause is man-made. "NEXT UP: Government declares rationing of oxygen for senior citizens AND, Sun taken in for questioning after extreme flare-up with third planet."

This person's editorializing upsets my stomach and causes sever cluster headaches that only LSD will cure.....

You make me feel like a complete crazy person when I read you.

We're all crazy, mate, welcome to earth.

9 out of 10 hired "scientists" agree, you are stupid enough to insure yourself against something that comes out of your mouth when you speak.

Comrade,

Good to have a discussion. I'll try to keep this up with ya, but I'm kinda busy
Lets duel

>> ^griefer_queafer:
Point is, isn't this just merely self-regulation?

Suppose that the leaders pay attention to scientific findings, and they realize that things have to change. Yes, the ‘insurance’ is a form of self-regulation for capitalism to increase industry and corporate markets. But, as is typical of a capitalist, they are trying to make a business out of saving the planet, at the risk of millions of lives.
My friend, Corporations are merely the bourgeoisie in a new form. Corporations are merely organized institutions to serve bourgeoisie interest, an interest in gaining capital.
The regulation is not a true regulation, however. What they are doing here is selling an idea of ‘regulation’. True regulation would be addressing all the points in our economic systems and finding the ‘open systems’ and making them a ‘closed system’, in the permaculture sense. Reduction of waste. Control of production to meet the needs, not the wants. We don’t need to produce thousands of cars that will never get sold solely for the insane and desperate hope that they somehow could.
>> ^griefer_queafer:
Please respond to this question: what if 'growth' as it occurs today, also occurs concomitantly with POSITIVE effects to the planet?
Also, please make 'growth' relevant to our neo-capitalist moment.

neo-capitalist? In what ways have we moved beyond the worker? Are you to tell me that an office worker is not alienated in the cubicle? Are you to tell me that the the sweatshop labor in china, Indonesia, India, etc are not workers? Are you to tell me that nowhere on the planet, workers are paid in slave wages with the boss reaping profit off surplus value? Are you to tell me that workers control their hours, control their pay based on labor and the value of the product?

I think you have some tarnished definitions. Corporations are the logical outcome of Capitalism. Corporations operate on capitalist principles. We do not live in a post-industrial society. Manufacturing and productive have increased substantially, less workers are needed for high-tech facilities, but in the United States and other developed Imperialist countries, we don’t see the worker. We are alienated from them, and we exist as fragmented consumers. We are needed to buy these products so this economy and corporations can continue to exist. Neo-capitalism? Perhaps, but capitalism nonetheless. The changes aren’t as substantial as it may seem. Things have just become harder to see in post-modernism.
So what’s growth?
Destruction of the natural environment, say, the Amazon, for cattle ranches. Increased production to meet an increased demand. This is unsustainable, because Capitalism favors the increased demand. What do corporations want Americans to do? Consume. BUY BUY BUY. This is all very obvious. We see it everyday. Hell, just look at Christmas. Where do the resources come from to make these products and where do they end? We take it from the earth and it winds up in a dumpster or landfill. The resources aren’t returned, there is no equal exchange, energy is wasted in the inefficiency of our system.
Paper pulp released into the rivers. Environmental damage of the Niger River Delta for the oil, with acid rain so powerful it eats the tin-roofs of the shacks were the local villagers live. People that live on that land that don’t get ANYTHING from the energy companies except the corporate hired gunmen to maintain a ‘favorable business climate'. How then, is this 'favorable bussiness climate' POSTIVE for the planet? Its not positive for the planet or for any of us.
>> ^griefer_queafer:
Why is it a short term goal if the idea is to fundamentally change the ways in which 'growth' affects the planet?


But they aren’t trying to fundamentally change anything. They want the Maldives to go under so they can sell them the fucking life rafts! Capitalists/Corporations don’t give a shit about the mass amount of human suffering that will occur. They just want to maintain their profit margin, seize the planets resources, privatize everything, and maintain control over the worker. You are a worker, I am a worker. Even intellect and academia is a commodity that is bought and sold. We are the proletariat. We have a boss, we don’t control our hours, our labor is sold for surplus value, at the cost of our liberties and our security on this planet.

Insurance rates are based on the probability of payout, potential magnitude of payout, number of insured, plus a little profit for the insurer. Probability is 1, so everyone is going to claim, for every dollar you spend on insurance, the insurer will take his profit and give you 90-something cents back. Best stick your money in the banks!