Ecomodernism

One of the motivations behind yesterday’s post was the sense that we will start to see people, who might be regarded as contrarians (or mitigation skeptics, as Victor might say), starting to adjust their views to be more consistent with that of those who’ve been arguing for action. I suspect, however, that if they do so, they will not acknowledge the role that they may have played in delaying action, will attempt to portray these ideas as new and their’s, and will probably do so with the goal of controlling the narrative and marginalising those who’ve already been speaking in favour of action.

However, I do think climate change is a serious issue and that there does come a time when you should forget past infractions, and try to start again. A time when we should assume that those with whom we might have disagreed do have good intentions, and that not all that they say is without merit. Forgive and forget, maybe, although that does sound a little trite. With that in mind, I wondered if others had had a chance to have a look at the newly released Ecomodernist manifesto?

There’s a very strong Breakthrough Institute influence and a number of those involved are people who – unfortunately – make me automatically suspicious. On the other hand, the document itself seems at least superficially reasonable. It starts with

In this, we affirm one long-standing environmental ideal, that humanity must shrink its impacts on the environment to make more room for nature, while we reject another, that human societies must harmonize with nature to avoid economic and ecological collapse.

I certainly agree with the first point, maybe less so with the second, but I can see that it is likely true: we probably don’t need to harmonize with nature to avoid economic and ecological collapse. My personal preference would be that we do to try to harmonize with nature as much as is possible, but I can see that it isn’t required so as to avoid economic catastrophe. I’m also assuming that harmonize has a much more specific meaning than shrinking impact.

It also says

There remain, however, serious long-term environmental threats to human well-being, such as anthropogenic climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, and ocean acidification.

which seems quite reasonable. Furthermore

Nations have also been slowly decarbonizing …. But they have not been doing so at a rate consistent with keeping cumulative carbon emissions low enough to reliably stay below the international target of less than 2 degrees Centigrade of global warming. Significant climate mitigation, therefore, will require that humans rapidly accelerate existing processes of decarbonization.

which, again, seems true. And then

Meaningful climate mitigation is fundamentally a technological challenge. ….. Absent profound technological change there is no credible path to meaningful climate mitigation. While advocates differ in the particular mix of technologies they favor, we are aware of no quantified climate mitigation scenario in which technological change is not responsible for the vast majority of emissions cuts.

which is probably true, but may suggest one issue with what is presented in the manifesto; it has a hint of the pragmatic climate policy that seems to be preferred by organisations like the Breakthrough Insitute. Let’s not focus too much on the science, let’s just be pragmatic and work on technology development, since that is going to be the best route forward anyway. Kind of true, but if you don’t have some kind of stimulus for doing so, how can we optimise our chances of developing suitable technology?

So, I would really like to embrace this kind of endeavour and the document itself seems superficially alright; it seems to say many of the right kind of things. On the other hand, I’m still a little cynical and have a suspicion that this is a manifesto that acknowledges the problems we might face, but that is still really just proposing that we don’t do anything specifically to address them; we simply rely on our inate ingenuity to find solutions that will be ready when we need them. I’m all for technology development and have no doubt that it will play a crucial role in addressing climate change. I would, however, prefer that we actively tried to address it, rather than assuming that we’ll address it in the natural course of our, supposedly automatic, advancement.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Climate change, Global warming, Science and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

95 Responses to Ecomodernism

  1. Andy Skuce says:

    You may notice no mention of wind energy and although solar gets a mention, it’s the solar technology that we don’t have yet. Even though they tout nuclear (the word is used eleven times) they mean the new generation of technologies.
    http://theenergycollective.com/jessejenkins/2218046/why-ecomodernists-should-embrace-wind-power

    There’s also no mention of carbon pricing (there’s an Iron Law forbidding it, you see), despite this being every economist’s favourite mitigation tool. They evidently don’t think much of reducing demand, either (cue Jevons).

    An implication running through it is that anyone who doesn’t buy into their vision is a dirty hippy who is stone-hearted about poor people suffering and dying from indoor air pollution caused by biomass stoves.

    They call themselves pragmatists, while embracing uninvented or untested technologies. It’s a manifesto for inaction that claims to laud progress. They appear clueless about the urgency of mitigation, seeming content to wait decades for fusion technology or whatever to save the day.

  2. My problem with ecological modernisation (of which these recent propositions from the Breakthrough Institute and others are part) is that it completely ignores the conflict between noeliberal capitalism and the environment. This is the central argument of Naomi Klein’s book and one that we also expound on in our forthcoming book “Climate Change, Capitalism and Corporations: Processes of Creative Self-Destruction” (CUP, due out October). There’s a short version of our argument here: https://climatepeopleorg.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/climate-change-and-the-curse-of-creative-self-destruction/

    Once you ignore the economy and economic growth in your analysis and assume its just a technology for companies to innovate around then you inevitably fail to comprehend the nature of the challenge we face. The reality is we need to fundamentally decouple economic growth from its material consequences (of which climate change is a key component). Technology will undoubtedly help here re decarbonisation, but this will require a different economic and political model based on strong state action and the drastic regulation of carbon emissions, not a free rein for corporations to take whatever action they deem desirable!

  3. Andy,
    Thanks for the comment and a good point about the focus on nuclear and little mention of anything else

    An implication running through it is that anyone who doesn’t buy into their vision is a dirty hippy who is stone-hearted about poor people suffering and dying from indoor air pollution caused by biomass stoves.

    Yes, indeed, that does seem to be an implication. I’ve just been engaged in a lengthyish discussion with Andrew Montford about this particular issue. Asking a loaded question in which you have to accept a position, or you’re advocating or the death of millions in the developing world. Montford seemed incapable of acknowledging that presenting something in this kind of way is not optimal if you want to encourage actual dialogue. I suspect that he doesn’t understand the concept of dialogue, but that’s no great surprise.

  4. Christopher,
    Thanks.

    completely ignores the conflict between noeliberal capitalism and the environment.

    Yes, that seems pretty clear.

    Once you ignore the economy and economic growth in your analysis and assume its just a technology for companies to innovate around then you inevitably fail to comprehend the nature of the challenge we face.

    I don’t quite get this. Did you mean “environment” rather than “economy”?

  5. topflat says:

    Last I checked we’ve basically been following the eco modernist manifesto for about one hundred years or do. We’ve been getting more efficient and more intensive in basically every activity we do. And where has it got us? It’s just the same tired thinking, naïvely believing we can have our cake and eat it. I find it pathetic.

    Climate change is not a technological problem. It is a human problem. If we were willing to stop burning stuff and be poorer, then we could solve climate change incredibly quickly. We aren’t willing to accept this, so instead we’ll mess around with vapid idiocy like this trying to fool ourselves with empty platitudes.

  6. Meow says:

    Asking a loaded question in which you have to accept a position, or you’re advocating or the death of millions in the developing world.

    Because Western corporations have always been deeply concerned about alleviating poverty in the developing world. That’s why they’ve dedicated the majority of their profits to that cause for at least the last 100 years, and are now preparing to up the ante by dedicating at least 90% to that cause for the next 50 years. So there, you dirty hippie.

  7. We aren’t willing to accept this, so instead we’ll mess around with vapid idiocy like this trying to fool ourselves with empty platitudes.

    Stronger than I would have put it, but you make a fair point. It’s essentially the “we’ve done so well in the past, everything’s going fine, we’ve solved all previous problems, let’s just carry on as we have as that’s clearly the best way forward”.

  8. “In this, we affirm one long-standing environmental ideal, that humanity must shrink its impacts on the environment to make more room for nature, while we reject another, that human societies must harmonize with nature to avoid economic and ecological collapse. ”

    I had to read the above several times before becoming convinced that it is exactly the opposite of my own form of ecopragmatic optimism as expressed here: http://planet3.org/beyond-sustainability-a-manifesto/

    I suggest instead that 1) it is far too late to disengage from Nature; there is no wilderness left, and 2) the best we can to save the most from Nature is to engage with it, not just to keep trying to build barriers between ourselves and it, as if Nature were a hostile tribe to be shipped off to a reservation, fenced in and for ever after ignored.

  9. Meow says:

    Bottom line: if it’s not about cutting carbon emissions rapidly, starting now, it’s more delay, deception, and denialism.

  10. Michael,
    Thanks for the comment. It’s getting rather late here, so I’ll have to read your post in the morning, but this makes a great deal of sense to me

    1) it is far too late to disengage from Nature; there is no wilderness left, and 2) the best we can to save the most from Nature is to engage with it, not just to keep trying to build barriers between ourselves and it, as if Nature were a hostile tribe to be shipped off to a reservation, fenced in and for ever after ignored.

  11. As for the rest of the document, it is platitudes of conventional wisdom from the development community with any idea of agency or commitment or struggle carefully elided. It’s hard to see how this offers any guidance for a strategy.

  12. BBD says:

    mtobis

    Just quickly, and this is *not* a loaded question, what did you make of Stewart Brand’s Whole Earth Discipline) ?

  13. russellseitz says:

    Best invest in a little dimensional analysis before dismissing the two degree target .

    Those who want policy to cut emissions growth to 1 ppm CO2 per year should be carefull what they wish for.

  14. Morbeau says:

    BBD, I know you’re not asking me, but as a long-time reader of Stewart Brand and the Co-Evolution Quarterly, I was amazed when he came out a few years ago and said, [badly paraphrased], “No, everything’s fine. We were wrong – the real way forward is more development, more nuclear power, GMOs and geoengineering will solve climate change.” I haven’t read WED, but this quote in the wiki article jumps out: “Brand says his views on climate are influenced most by his old friend James Lovelock”. I respect SB as a practical guy, but I think he’s put his faith in technology and doesn’t understand climate politics.

    (I also think he’s dangerously wrong about genetic engineering. Not that I believe the bunk about toxic GMOs etc., but putting that technology in the hands of unregulated (unregulatable) Capitalism is a recipe for disaster.)

  15. BBD says:

    Thanks Morbeau

    Like you, I see caveats. One point though: technology is already in the hands of unregulated (and possibly unregulatable) capitalism. It produces the stuff in the first place.

  16. Meow says:

    Those who want policy to cut emissions growth to 1 ppm CO2 per year should be carefull [sic] what they wish for.

    No. That article assumes that meaningful conservation is impossible and that there aren’t and won’t be any substitutes for carbon-based energy. Both premises are incorrect. But it makes for nice scare-mongering, especially the part that reads:

    …the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests cutting the global rise in CO2 to one part per million by 2050. That’s only a small multiple of the weight of the CO2 people exhale.

  17. I think ecological modernisation has appeal to those who look to a market driven solution to AGW, in that it is premised on the notion that innovations in renewable technologies will win market support over time. It might be a good thing, if we are looking for a kind of common language to bridge the denial gap to conservatives…

    But I agree with Christopher above, that this idea is based on an idealised picture of modern day capitalism -as though there is actually a ‘free’ market in energy already. With $22 trillion of carbon assets still in the ground, and decades of subsidies, lobbying networks and institutional support already behind the fossil fuel industry, it is fantasy to think that ecological innovations compete on a level playing field.

    In Australia by the Abbott government used the ecological modernisation rhetoric against the idea of pricing carbon emissions, opting instead for an “emissions reduction plan” which pays polluters when they adopt token innovations in waste management, emissions etc. The government then used ecological modernisation rhetoric to say lots of nice things about renewable energy, while removing support for the industry, so that it can ‘grow on its own merits’.

    Aside from using ecological modernisation as a greenwash for Australia’s existing polluters, the focus on markets lets them imply that if consumers don’t take up renewable energy on a large scale, it must be because renewables are just not attractive after all. But of course the fossil fuel industry in Australia is not only massively subsidised by taxpayers, but one of the Australian government’s latest measures looks to be imposing extra charges on people who have fitted solar power to their homes.

    My issue with ecological modernisation theory is that it is premised on an imaginary world of free markets, which only serves to distract from the market distortions that are really happening. Innovations in renewable energy are happening anyway, but the timeframe for them to go from niche to mainstream is dependent on support -just the same as every other major industry grew in real life.

  18. Christopher Wright, after looking at your link, I look forward to your book. 🙂

  19. T-rev says:

    ” they will not acknowledge the role that they may have played in delaying action”

    Personally I think this sentiment needs to apply more so to those who have been advocates of mitigation, understand the need for it and the need to act quickly (less than 15 years according to Kevin Anderson)
    http://kevinanderson.info/blog/full-global-decarbonisation-of-energy-by-2034-and-probably-before/
    and yet don’t and they then follow that “culpability” by voting for politicians (eg Tory/Labour:UK, ALP/LNP :Aus or D/R:US etal who don’t have effective mitigation as key parts of their policy platform.

    How is this group any less to blame then mitigation skeptics who “come around”. and act the same ? ie nothing to actually seriously help mitigation.

  20. anoilman says:

    Andy Skuce says:
    “April 17, 2015 at 9:54 pm
    They call themselves pragmatists, while embracing uninvented or untested technologies. It’s a manifesto for inaction that claims to laud progress. They appear clueless about the urgency of mitigation, seeming content to wait decades for fusion technology or whatever to save the day.”

    I’ve started calling this a “Lomborg Gambit”;
    https://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/lomborg-long-game/
    (Spread it around guys, and maybe it will stick.)

    All future actions from the denial crew will be side steps to do nothing. Right now, we need a Carbon Tax, and Renewables. (Nuclear too, but I personally suspect that nuclear will fit the Gambit in many cases.)

    Anders: Lots of people of Canada have a leaning to Liberal + something Green. That will be put to the test in this year’s election. Any sort of Ecomodernist Manifesto will have a strong appeal here.

  21. Thanks. It’s been a long process getting the book completed and now we’re just waiting for the final proofs!

  22. russellseitz says:

    “We aren’t willing to accept this, so instead we’ll mess around with vapid idiocy like this trying to fool ourselves with empty platitudes.”

    , We are no where near Peak Vapid Idiocy .

  23. matt says:

    tl;dr. Do they propose any solutions? Tax GHGs and use the revenue on tech development?

  24. MikeH says:

    Clive Hamilton’s essay on the lukewarmers aka “ecomodernists” is always worth a read for those who have not encountered BTI before.
    http://theconversation.com/climate-change-and-the-soothing-message-of-luke-warmism-8445

    As noted above, they are advocates for the nuclear industry, particularly the technology that is not yet (and may never be) deployable, fracking and “clean coal”. Basically they are advocates for a business as usual “lite”.
    http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/issues/innovation-policy/hei-shale-gas

    In the long run, these neo-Lomborgists pose a greater threat to an effective carbon mitigation policy that the straight out cranks because they provide cover for those people who want BAU.

    See for example the Australian Abbott government’s $4m funding of Lomborg to setup a climate misinformation centre at UWA. They do not see Lomborg (or the BTI) as a threat, despite the fact that both nominally acknowledge climate science, as their solutions do not apply until some time well into the future.

  25. Andy Skuce says:

    Here is George Monbiot on Stewart Brand and Brand’s false claim that greens are responsible for the deaths of millions from malaria, due to a worldwide DDT ban.

    “When I first came across your work, I took it at face value. As I read more, I began to wonder if you are not, as you claim, pioneering a new form of environmentalism, but a new form of corporate consultancy. You seem to be seeking to shape the environmental debate to suit the businesses you work for. Our correspondence does nothing to dispel this impression. Can you disabuse me of my suspicions?

    You are more dangerous than the other corporate-sponsored adversaries of the green movement. You don’t deny that climate change is happening. You don’t get abusive, you remain polite and charming, you sound reasonable at all times. You are, as a result, a more effective operator than them: you have persuaded a lot of influential people that you are working for the good of the planet. I fear that the campaign you are running is the most insidious and subtle exercise in corporate propaganda I have yet encountered. As a result, no one, until now, has called you out on it. With this response, that changes.”

    The full exchanges are worth reading. Note the extraordinary appearance of Patrick Moore

    http://www.monbiot.com/2010/11/06/is-stewart-brand-the-new-ian-plimer/

    http://www.monbiot.com/2010/11/10/correspondence-with-stewart-brand-second-tranche/

  26. I used to worship Stewart Brand and admired everything he said or did. But all of us get old someday. I own several editions of the Whole Earth Catalog. But lately it feels to me like he is mailing it in. Will follow up on Andy’s links.

  27. Jamie says:

    Gah! All based on future nuclear and solar technology (of unspecified greater efficiency) that’s yet to be deployed, no wind and no efficiency eh? Good luck with that. The usual TBI nonsense of course but expressed in particularly divisive terms. I have little doubt quite a few people will jump on this convenient bandwagon though.

  28. izen says:

    On a first skim-read the big, glaring conceptual annoyance is the frequent use of ‘Nature'(33) and ‘Natural'(15) to denote some aspects of the environment.

    Like ‘Natural’ cycles as a component of the climate, Nature seems to be invoked as a separate, and separable component from human activity.

    To adapt Johst/Marx
    ” when I hear ‘Nature’… I reach for my wallet”

  29. Roger Jones says:

    The elephant in the room with all the TBI stuff is governance. If you look carefully at what they advocate, it’s all centrally managed, hierarchical infrastructure such as big thermal energy and nuclear. Dispersed, shared, dare-I-say-it communiatarian, infrastructure within an egaliatrian framework is frowned upon. So, no wind, no sun.

    We’re back into cultural theory here. Carefully stage managed and as artful as anything Lomborg has done. They are cornucopians, so ecology is an inconvenient truth. Barry Brook aside, I don’t think they would recognise ecology if it bit them on the arse, and I’m not sure that Barry doesn’t have a numb bum, either.

    A systems thinker would embrace all of the above, then work out what the most ethical solutions were.

  30. Rob Nicholls says:

    “To the degree to which there are fixed physical boundaries to human consumption, they are so theoretical as to be functionally irrelevant.” I find this frightening, but I suspect this reflects the dominant thinking about economics rather well.

  31. JCH says:

    At the start of WW2 my father ended up stationed in the Solomons. They sprayed their base, their tents, their bedding, and even soaked their clothing in DDT. They still had malaria victims. Eventually they sprayed so much on Guadalcanal that Marine Corps divisions could be safely based and trained there. I’ve haven’t been able to discover how many of those Marines came down with malaria. Could be zero, a few, or a lot. Dad indicated they used massive amounts of it. There were no regulations, and no expertise. Just a bunch of sailors and leathernecks with cans full of DDT. After a year in theater, my Dad came down with malignant tertian malaria, and was lucky to have survived. So in 1942 they had drug therapies that worked. Why didn’t the compassionate conservatives pay for and send drugs to save the millions of people the greenies were killing?

  32. Roger,
    Thanks, that was similar to my reading of it too. It surprises me that people who are clearly intelligent and thoughtful, seem so fixated on what is essentially a single solution to a complex problem.

    Why didn’t the compassionate conservatives pay for and send drugs to save the millions of people the greenies were killing?

    Yes, a reason why I find the “the poors” argument cynical. We have the ability to address poverty, malaria, climate change and all sorts of other problems if we wished to do so. The idea that they are somehow independent and that we need to think serially is rather odd.

  33. John Hartz says:

    Joe Romm shreds the ecomodernist manifesto (“anti-informative essay” per Romm) in his Climate Progress post of April 17,

    How To Tell If The Article About Climate You Are Reading Is B.S., In Four Easy Steps

  34. John Hartz says:

    Romm concludes his critique of the so-called “maninfesto” with the following:

    “The eco-modernists and other advocates of the phrase ‘good Anthropocene,’ however, use it to advance policies that, if followed, would insure future generations live in the ‘definitely catastrophic Anthropocene.’ ”

  35. Willard says:

    > We are no where near Peak Vapid Idiocy .

    If we include retro stuff, we may never will:

    What a man was the “Admirable Crichton”. At 17, James, son of Robert Crichton, Scotland’s Elizabethan Lord Advocate, could successfully dispute any subject in twelve languages at the Sorbonne and defeat all comers in a jousting tournament at the Louvre. Add to this Aristotelian legal prodigy’s qualifications a Harvard MD, an extra foot of height, and disarming modesty, and you get a creature akin to the present Crichton, Michael, who is by some accounts even able to change minds in Washington D.C. But what about his own? His sense of modesty is about to be tested.

    http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/11/the-admirable-c.html

  36. An effective way to get your boss to do something is to make your boss think it was her idea.

    If some people are willing to implement a policy I like on the condition that it looks like their idea, that will often look like a good deal to me. That does not prevent me from advocating other policies.

    (The term “mitigation sceptic” was invented for general use, no need to attribute it to me.)

  37. Brandon Gates says:

    BBD,

    Not addressed to me, but if I may …

    Just quickly, and this is *not* a loaded question, what did you make of Stewart Brand’s Whole Earth Discipline?

    It’s about as open-ended, non-loaded, non-leading a question as one could ask — a veritable lost art in dialogue. However, I can pervert the Socratic method away from truth-seeking just as easily as modern day Sophists who are more associated with prevarication than good-faith pursuasion.

    I made paper aeroplanes out of the catalogue.

    Kidding. Until yesterday I did not realize that DDT was not banned for purposes of disease control, and that Brand is behind — or at least contributed to [1] — that falsehood. My liberal guilt is now somewhat assuaged … always a good thing. Today I see Brand as bit of a harmless k00k. The Long Now Foundation doesn’t have wholly terrible ideas as far as I can tell, but solving the Y10K problem 8,000 years in advance seems an unnecessary affectation — not least because I’m firmly convinced that we’ll either have been swallowed up by Ray Kurzweil’s Singularity or nuked ourselves well before we can melt Antarctica … perhaps even before our (dis)ingenuity converts the low latitude tropics into a human autoclave with diurnal temperature ranges exceeding or near the 37 °C wet-bulb temperature threshold.

    I could be wrong about him … honestly I haven’t paid him much attention in a long time. Perhaps I should.

    ——————

    [1] RationalWiki blames Roger Bate as the originator of the DDT ban has killed zillions in Africa myth: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roger_Bate

    Their article on DDT does not mention Stewart Brand in their list of “DDT Deniers”: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/DDT

    They don’t have an article dedicated to Stewart Brand either; Wikipedia’s article on him doesn’t mention DDT at all.

    This leaves me with many nagging questions.

  38. Michael says:

    Andy Skuce says:”anyone who doesn’t buy into their vision is a dirty hippy who is stone-hearted about poor people suffering and dying from indoor air pollution caused by biomass stoves.”

    So what is your description of people that do not buy into your vision? Maybe I’ll look around a bit for the answer.

    In the United States I sense a growing awareness by the great middle that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have a functional roadmap for the future; way too much emphasis on philsosophical “purity” and not enough emphasis on what might work.

    I concur with Izen, although it’s probably accidental stemming from inadequate understanding, that mankind IS nature, and nature is mankind, trying to separate them is a failed venture. Many years ago I wrote Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska on nearly the same topic; that to create a vast wildnerness in Alaska that nobody could enter was a “doom” — if no one can go there, then it is not valued, and if it is not valued, then sooner or later its protection will be revoked entirely and you’ll be worse off than before.

    One must be part of the thing in order to value the thing. More contact with nature, more involvement with human and non-human life. People will protect what they love. Reduce the barriers; not to rampant development, but to ordinary people enjoying nature. I’m not sure how effective such a thing will be, but I’m quite sure that carving up the planet into little rich-peoples’ biomes is a doom. It is also a doom to “decarbonize”. How many advocates of such a thing have shown us the way by being the first to decarbonize? I don’t mean trivial decarbonizaton either. Top to bottom. Nothing synthetic. If you didn’t grow it you don’t wear it, eat it, seek shelter under it, ride it. I suspect your readers here are intelligent enough to realize that’s a non-starter. The people that attempt it are either rich kids playing at nature, or dirt poor and that’s their only choice.

    When I go into the wilderness, which I love, I also have technology. I didn’t evolve to NOT use GPS, two-way radio, magnetic compass, Gore-Tex and granola bars.

    When the fossil fuel is used up, which will eventually be true no matter what, the world population will decline to a sustainable level, but it won’t do so gracefully. It’ll be like the Kaibab Plateau ecological disaster. It’ll be more like Mad Max at Edinburgh; a movie that hasn’t been made yet but likely coming soon to a theater near you.

    “Britain is not self-sufficient in food production; it imports 40% of the total food consumed and the proportion is rising”
    http://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/issue/uk.html

    Unless these imports arrive on sailing ships, decarbonization means an end to food imports.

    Not only that, but food production itself is highly dependent on petroleum for fertilizer and machinery. In the United States, about the only location able to fully support itself without petroleum and electricity is Lancaster county, Pennsylvania; home of the Amish. Everything is “just right”.

    So if Great Britain suddenly were to lose that 40 percent of food import, what would be the consequence? I expect that troubles will start in the big cities that are already burdened with non-producing citizens. Maybe Hadrian’s wall could and ought to be be repaired.

  39. BBD says:

    Thanks Brandon G.

    I read Monbiot’s set-to with SB at the time with mounting dismay. However, I wonder if GM went too far in accusing Brand of effectively being a corporate shill. Careless, duped, caught out and unwisely reluctant to admit it, but I was and remain reluctant to apply falsus in uno to Brand. There is, to put it mildly, insufficient evidence to proceed.

  40. Brandon Gates says:

    BBD,

    There is, to put it mildly, insufficient evidence to proceed.

    Pretty much what my 30 whole minutes of research yielded up as well. I generally trust your nose on such things, I appreciate you letting me know we’re plausibly smelling an overly broad polemic.

    Of course, now I have the happy task of not applying hasty generalizations to Monbiot …. not an easy thing for me.

  41. BBD says:

    Well, I’ve got a lot of respect for Monbiot, but like us all, he is only human and sometimes gets things wrong. There was his rather unfortunate misjudgement over the CRU email hack, for example, although IIRC he did later publish a qualified mea culpa (I’m channeling the Potty Peer tonight; sorry).

  42. Well I just spotted this article in The Guardian by Prof Mike Hulme which seems to fall in the ‘ecomodernist’ camp: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/17/why-fossil-fuel-divestment-is-a-misguided-tactic?CMP=share_btn_tw

    His critique of the fossil fuel divestment movement starts with the usual misdirection re how divestment won’t effect the share price of major fossil fuel companies and then move straight into ticking all the boxes of distraction and denial – climate change is complex; we have lots of other problems; perhaps we should wait and consider other responses; ‘adaptation’ might be more realistic……!

    This is a shame really, as I liked a good deal of his ‘Why We Disagree About Climate Change’ book (not a profound book but a nice statement of how we frame climate change within world views and ideologies). This piece in The Guardian however is terribly politically naive.

    No doubt The Breakthrough Boyz and Good Anthropocene crowd will be queuing up to laud it!

  43. Andy Skuce says:

    I also think Monbiot overreached a bit there, but he also made a good general point that’s relevant to this whole BTI/Brand/Lomborg/Lynas phenomenon.

    People who write books and articles on environmental issues get little in the way of financial gain, certainly not much in proportion to the labour that they put into it. Look, for example at George Monbiot’s Registry of Interests. Monbiot is a hard working star journalist, writer and speaker, yet he makes a middling income (GBP 45-60k) in a business where there is little job security, few perks and no pension.
    http://www.monbiot.com/registry-of-interests/

    But controversy sells, especially the now familiar environmentalist-turned-technology-maven story. It sells not just books, but the author now has the ear of corporate chiefs and politicians who welcome the message of new hope through technology compared to the rather dismal refrain of tax this, regulate that, stop subsidizing the other.

    Suddenly, the struggling author is asked to provide their out-of-the-box wisdom as consultancy services to big companies (getting paid for a few days’ work more than they earned in royalties for their last book) and asked to appear on TV or testify to Congress. Think-tank money may seek them out and pay them to produce more of the same. They perhaps trade their office in their basement or garden shed for shiny new premises, closer to the action. No longer do they hope to get their calls returned from skeptical publishers, but instead have messages from plutocrats waiting on their voicemail.

    In other words, what may start out simply as an earnest attempt to liven up the conversation and move a few books, can easily be corrupted to become something that resembles corporate salesmanship or political pandering.

  44. Willard says:

    > this whole BTI/Brand/Lomborg/Lynas phenomenon

    I prefer to call it The Lomborg Collective.

  45. BBD says:

    Andy Skuce

    Such is life. As Michael Tobis so gently put it: “but all of us get old someday”.

  46. Willard says:

    > all of us get old someday

    If only:

  47. BBD says:

    From the video soundtrack (1:15)

    But she’s [Rand] something you’re supposed to grow out of, like Ska music

    But Ska music grew a bit and published a reply to AR 😉

  48. Willard says:

    You want Ska, BBD?

    You can’t handle Ska!

  49. BBD says:

    Oh that Ska. Sorry.

  50. Andy Skuce says:

    As Michael Tobis so gently put it: “but all of us get old someday”.

    It’s usually better than the alternative. Woody Allen:
    “There’s an old joke – um… two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of ’em says, “Boy, the food at this place is really terrible.” The other one says, “Yeah, I know; and such small portions.” Well, that’s essentially how I feel about life – full of loneliness, and misery, and suffering, and unhappiness, and it’s all over much too quickly.”

    While we are on the subjects of Ayn Rand and death, Christopher Hitchens isn’t getting older any more and nor are his best lines:
    “I have always found it quaint and rather touching that there is a movement [Libertarians] in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.”

  51. “I have always found it quaint and rather touching that there is a movement [Libertarians] in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.”

    Priceless. Wish it was wrong.

  52. Brandon Gates says:

    BBD,

    I’m channeling the Potty Peer tonight; sorry.

    S’OK, in theory my Latin is pretty good having suffered through a mandatory 3 years of it. I draw the line at responding to my posts while referring to me in third person though. Course, when Monkers does that to me, I take it as a sign that the point hit its mark.

  53. MikeH says:

    @christopherwrightau
    Hulme’s connection to BTI goes back to at least 2010 via the Hartwell House document which was the precursor to the current lukewarmer’s manifesto.
    http://theconversation.com/climate-change-and-the-soothing-message-of-luke-warmism-8445

  54. Joseph says:

    let’s just be pragmatic and work on technology development, since that is going to be the best route forward anyway. Kind of true, but if you don’t have some kind of stimulus for doing so, how can we optimise our chances of developing suitable technology?

    I agree. I do think the technology piece is essential to make the transition to a low carbon economy as smooth and rapid as possible. But in the “free market” private investment usually goes where the demand is and right now that’s primarily in oil, gas, and coal (although demand for coal seems to falling a little). So I think if we are ever going to get the technological innovations that these people believe we need, we are going to need that outside stimulus you mention to increase demand for low carbon technologies.

  55. Adam R. says:

    “…the most insidious and subtle exercise in corporate propaganda I have yet encountered. ” could well be said of this manifesto.

    Denialist Neanderthals like Anthony Watts and Monckton are being left in the dust by this kind of sophisticated, nouveau-delayist propaganda.

  56. Pingback: Ecology and the environment | …and Then There's Physics

  57. Brandon Gates says:

    Willard,

    I prefer to call it The Lomborg Collective.

    Resistance may be futile.

  58. Ken Fabian says:

    The shift away from open rejection of climate science within the rhetoric of mainstream opposition and obstruction of effective climate action looks strategic to me. The “hiatus” might (an el Nino or two and it will) end in a hockey stick, the Arctic Ocean becomes a major shipping lane, Greenland and Antarctic ice loss accelerate; obstruction based on claiming AGW isn’t true is unsustainable and successful opponents understand enough climate science to know it.

    Lukewarmism looks like the new climate science denialism and, whilst rejection of climate science remains thoroughly threaded through and underpins opposition to climate action, obstructing climate action is increasingly seen as more achievable by a clearer separation of opposing climate action and disbelief of climate science. The most effective opponents of climate action are increasingly going to resort to saying they accept the science in order to be on the inside of the debate to better obstruct and delay.

    The shift is being spun as growing mainstream acceptance of the seriousness of the problem but what I see is a continuing and even a growing willingness to be misleading and deceptive.

    Having the whole issue spun as driven by ‘green’ politics, not science, and nations led blindly into ‘green’ solutions like renewables because of excessive ‘green’ political influence is a consequence of mainstream politics going AWOL and choosing to frame the issue as driven by extremist fringe politics – in order to associate climate with an irrational fringe, and reduce mainstream acceptance and support.

  59. Eli Rabett says:

    Well it is rather Stalinist in it’s love of heavy metal.

  60. graemeu says:

    Really nice to see everyone in agreement (or near enough) for a change.
    Somebody made the comment that there are no Judith Curry’s in ecology and ecologists are probably curled up in the corner crying. Firstly there are those who are pragmatic, they support not spending money on ‘lost causes’ i.e. difficult tasks. They also believe offsetting is the answer in the long-run. A classic offsetting case is the removal of a carnivorous snail to a refrigerated box in order to get at a small amount of high quality coal under a fog shrouded peak. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powelliphanta_augusta My thesis supervisor is an offsetter and while I understand his argument, I believe it is in error, at least in the NZ context.
    However I take umbrage at the suggestion that ecologists are curled up in the corner. I know many who are frustrated and angry but being apathetic or distancing themselves from effecting change is not a normal part of the mindset.

    ATTP
    The basic manifesto seems laudable enough except that last bit. The explanation though…scary shit! What a load of cherry picking, hyperbole and misuse of data (assuming the data is correct).
    I thought maybe it is the opening Republican gambit for the upcoming election campaign but if Lomborg is behind it then it all becomes clear.
    What I got from it was:
    The current (western) economic model is ideal
    Maintain current per capita levels of energy use as it doesn’t matter
    Increase consumption (to maintain the economy)
    Increase nuclear energy supplies until that meets all demand
    Don’t green cities – evolved humans don’t need green
    Conversely- weirdos and primitives can go outside the cities if they want to commune with nature
    Why let nature do something for free (ecosystem services) when technology + energy could be used to make someone filthy rich while further enslaving the poor.
    They either don’t understand ‘biodiversity’ or are seeking to redefine it.

    The authors seem to think there is only one way to design urban areas, one way to design suburban areas, one way to grow food, one way to cater for nature and one way to meet energy needs. As a result they have forged one manifesto to bring this all to pass.

    They don’t seem to grasp even the most basic concepts of biological systems like how farms work (nutrient cycles, what makes soil). Let alone natural systems or semi-natural systems such as the coppiced woods and hedges of England.

  61. graemeu says:

    Hah, found it: ‘curled up’ ecologists ‘Guthrie’ in your follow up post. The problem with reading 2 posts at the same time.

  62. Michael 2 says:

    Graemeu says “A classic offsetting case is the removal of a carnivorous snail to a refrigerated box in order to get at a small amount of high quality coal under a fog shrouded peak.”

    I suppose one ought to be glad that Forest and Bird didn’t exist 65 million years ago or they’d be wringing their hands at the extinction of dinosaurs.

    “The accident happened over Labour Weekend”

    Everything stops for Labour Weekends.
    It’s interesting that the Department of Conservation was responsible for this. I have a feeling you meant to blame the coal miners for it.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/5942401/DOC-accidentally-kills-800-rare-snails

  63. Maybe we should have a #Craiggetthevan hastag whenever someone mentions Bjorn Lomborg?

  64. graemeu says:

    Michael 2
    What’s your point?
    You seem to be suggesting that if someone is shot and the surgeon makes a mistake resulting in an avoidable death, it’s all the surgeons fault.
    Solid Energy insisted on removing the only habitat of an entire species in favour of a technology fix and passed the buck to an underfunded govt. agency.
    My point is that offsetting and the techno fix are poor solutions.

  65. victorpetri says:

    Did not realize how dogmatically left people are on this site.
    As a humanist, the ecomodernist manifesto seems very reasonable to me.

    Btw, Monbiot is quite paranoid in his response towards Brand, expecting ulterior motivation instead of just a different opinion on what he thinks is right for society.

  66. vp,

    Did not realize how dogmatically left people are on this site.

    And you wonder why people respond to you as they do? Come on, if you don’t like the way people treat you here, stop labelling people in such simplistic ways. This is not a complicated concept.

    As a humanist, the ecomodernist manifesto seems very reasonable to me.

    Fine, well done, I’m pleased. Not everyone has to agree.

  67. jsam says:

    Everyone is to the left of wingnuts. FIFY.

  68. victorpetri says:

    I am not rightwing, I am not a libertarian. I am centrist, I vote centrist in the Netherlands as well (which would be probably be considered leftish in the US).
    And the manifesto is clearly centrist.

  69. Okay, maybe we could just all stop labelling people. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and all that.

  70. victorpetri says:

    So Stewart Brand changes his mind and consequently is done as a source, his book discarded as dangerous and unknowledgable (by someone who hasn’t even read it), branded a corporate shrill and put aside as a kook. Clearly, even long time fans don’t know how to distantiate themselves far and fast enough.

    Breaking ranks is terminal for your reputation. Changing your mind apparently a sin.

  71. vp,
    A little melodramatic maybe?

  72. victorpetri says:

    @attp
    Definitely, sometimes you just get that urge.

  73. Willard says:

    > sometimes you just get that urge

    See for yourself:

    That Mark does not agree with my change of mind on climate […] is fair enough. I don’t, however, understand why he chooses to take the low road in his attacks on me. His latest blog post is entitled “On Matt Ridley’s latest attempt at climate change denial”. He knows full well that I have never advocated climate change “denial” and that that very phrase was invented as a way smear sceptics who think the dangers of climate change are being exaggerated by associating them with holocaust denial. Yuk.

    http://www.marklynas.org/2014/11/matt-ridley-responds/

  74. jsam says:

    What number of wrongs does make a right?

    #Craiggetthevan

  75. Michael 2 says:

    jsam says “Everyone is to the left of wingnuts.”

    While not being a very useful comment (being the mirror of “everyone is to the right of …” insert suitable epithet), it does convey a hint of truth — the spectrum is circular. If you go to the far left you meet the far right at “totalitarianism”. The correct opposite of far left or far right is liberty.

  76. MikeH says:

    Barry Brook promoting the manifesto at The Conversation. I am not sure if Brook was responsible for the heading but it is (presumably unintentionally) quite funny.

    “An ecomodernist’s manifesto: save wildlife by embracing new tech”
    https://theconversation.com/an-ecomodernists-manifesto-save-wildlife-by-embracing-new-tech-40239

    “An ecomodernist’s manifesto: save big corporate by embracing new old tech” would probably be more accurate.

  77. jsam says:

    M2 0 I wasn’t trying to be helpful. I was mocking the resurgent meme “if you care about the environment you must be a leftie”.

    Libertarian liberty isn’t real liberty. But perhaps that’s for another blog.

  78. Andrew Dodds says:

    @MikeH

    Can you explain why it is funny?

    For example, if we find ways to directly synthesize food (or, for example, grow meat in vats), that’s a plausable technology step that means we can stop intensive farming over huge areas. Not ‘farm a little nicer’, but ‘Stop farming altogether’. Is that funny?

    Again – if we actually develop and commercialize things like molten salt Thorium reactors, we can produce dispatchable electricity in very high amounts with limited waste. I suppose this is funny as well.

    Of course, no big corporates are involved in solar panel manufacture, wind turbines, biofuels or batteries. No siree. All made by local basket-weaving cooperatives..

    (And if anyone wishes to complain about the tone.. well, the kind of dismissal-by-ridicule above is what you expect from climate denialists talking about ‘SUVs on Mars’, it deserves snark.)

  79. Michael 2 says:

    jsam “M2 I wasn’t trying to be helpful. I was mocking the resurgent meme ‘if you care about the environment you must be a leftie’.”

    I’ll agree that mocking memes isn’t helpful; but I would like to see that particular meme vanish. I care very much for the environment and yet I’m libertarian/republican. I leave no trash; usually I bring out trash that I didn’t take into the wilderness although there’s some risk in doing so if you inadvertently get caught with illegal drug residue.

    “Libertarian liberty isn’t real liberty.”

    Ah, the “No True Libertarian” fallacy. Liberty is independent of its actors. If you are free to choose your behavior (and reap the consequences thereof), you have liberty. Many people wish to be free to act, but then not suffer the consequences of poor choices. That isn’t liberty but it *is* somewhat left wing. Being denied the rewards of good choices is decidedly left wing.

    Libertarian is difficult. It requires education, thinking, responsibility. It means not counting on government to bear the consequence of one’s own poor choices. It means being conscious of your neighbors and the world; that to cut down all trees is to die; maybe not today, but inevitably.

    Socialism is almost completely devoid of liberty. Everything not forbidden is compulsory (reference to T.H. White’s “Once and Future King”).

    Libertarian is uncommon. More common is left or right; both of which are totalitarian in their extreme expression, both are controlling. The United States wasn’t founded on left or right principles; it was founded on libertarian principles — life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; but no guarantee of any of them. You ought not to be told what to do and you ought not to be telling others what to do. And yet, there can be no life, liberty or pursuit of happiness without mutual respect among neighbors and that includes a respect for the commons.

  80. jsam says:

    Spare us the advertising.

  81. Andrew Dodds says:

    M2 –

    The problem is, the like of liberty you describe pretty much depends upon everyone being fully functional Adults, very well educated (such that they can understand the long term consequences of their actions).

    As a trivial example.. I have kids, should I take the ‘Libertarian’ parenting approach of letting them do absolutely what they want and suffering the consequences? I also have aging parents – if they get dementia, should they be able to do whatever they ‘want’ and suffer the consequences?

    Indeed, should I be free to walk out on my family without any child support payments (etc) due?

    Or as a more pertinent example.. if I burn natural gas, even if I run a large factory on the stuff, the global warming impacts from the emissions for which I am directly responsible are minuscule. So why should I care? You surely can’t collectively punish me for it.

    The interesting thing is that the kind of society that libertarians are really thinking of, I suspect, involves relatively small groups of people (There is an empirical limit of perhaps 150) which can self-organise and self-manage because everyone knows everyone else – such groups don’t need formal laws. The problem is that it dosen’t scale; you want a bigger society, you need the structure of laws, taxes, government and whatnot to deal with the inevitable commons and free rider problems. Of course, if you are one of the free riders or you are profiting from damaging the commons, then I could see how Libertarian rhetoric would be attractive.

  82. BBD says:

    M2

    Libertarian is difficult. It requires education, thinking, responsibility.

    Andrew D nails this exactly. It isn’t going to be of the remotest bit of use since it doesn’t scale. What works for a village does not work for a city, never mind a nation.

  83. Reality gets in the way of everything. We all want to pay less taxes, but we also want a decent police force, justice system, education, healthcare, transport infrastructure…. We all just want only to have the minimum of laws and regulations, but can’t agree on what those actually are.

  84. Michael 2 says:

    Andrew, thank you for your thoughtful reply, one of the first (if not THE first) to seriously consider the meaning of libertarian.

    Andrew Dodds says “The problem is, the like of liberty you describe pretty much depends upon everyone being fully functional Adults, very well educated (such that they can understand the long term consequences of their actions).”

    Yes, that’s pretty much exactly what I wrote; unstated is the implication that since that’s demonstrably not the case “libertarian” isn’t actually going to work on any kind of large scale, which BBD observes.

    The next part of the argument then becomes, “If that’s not going to work; what DOES work while preserving incentive and liberty to a reasonably great degree?” but we (this group right here on this blog) has never gotten to that next question so maybe this is the big moment!

    “As a trivial example.. I have kids, should I take the ‘Libertarian’ parenting approach of letting them do absolutely what they want and suffering the consequences?”

    That is not the libertarian approach (in my opinion obviously). The libertarian approach is to carefully consider what each child needs to achieve his or her purpose in life taking into account necessary social instruction without which no society can exist. This observation is best, and perhaps only, possible by the child’s parents that are free to act.

    The socialist approach is boilerplate; someone in the United Nations will dictate exactly what every child is to learn and when to learn worldwide! Can you believe it? Of course you can; but are you appalled? Probably not.

    http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx “promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom”

    Uh, like, what is “larger freedom”?

    Anyway…

    “if they get dementia, should they be able to do whatever they ‘want’ and suffer the consequences?”

    Nope. Liberty requires responsibility. Lose your responsibility and you have already lost your liberty even though your feet may still have the power to wander the streets of London.

    “should I be free to walk out on my family without any child support payments (etc) due?”

    Yes and no. Liberty requires responsibility. You must be free to walk out so that you can choose to honor your responsibility and not because you are chained to your house.

    Marriage, and parenting, is perhaps one of the strongest contracts existing for libertarians. I was mid-life when I married and started my family. My wife was also my first and only lover. I chose that responsibility with eyes open. It hasn’t exactly turned out the way I hoped, but I honor my family and my commitment. That’s what you get when people are free.

    On a related note; while I am morally opposed to homosexuality, I am in favor of liberty such that I prefer people to be free to do whatever they want, so that persons wishing a heterosexual relationship complete with family and dog can choose wisely and freely and not worry about someone “in the closet” coming out suddenly; because such persons will already be doing what they prefer. It would be all around better if people didn’t have to live “secret lives”.

    “if I burn natural gas, even if I run a large factory on the stuff, the global warming impacts from the emissions for which I am directly responsible are minuscule. So why should I care? You surely can’t collectively punish me for it.”

    A peculiar aspect of deep libertarian thinking is that YOU can punish me for it; there is no “collective” whatsoever. All behavior is human behavior. I might have ten thousand people working for me, but somewhere is a human person that makes every decision that is made.

    Indeed, “collective” behavior cannot exist except as an aggregate of individual behavior. Collective rights cannot exist if the individual right does not exist (relevant to gun control). If I don’t have a right, how is it possible that a thousand people suddenly have that right “collectively”? Well, it isn’t. There is not nor can there be any such thing as a collective right.

    “The interesting thing is that the kind of society that libertarians are really thinking of, I suspect, involves relatively small groups of people (There is an empirical limit of perhaps 150) which can self-organise and self-manage because everyone knows everyone else – such groups don’t need formal laws.”

    Agreed. The pattern seems to stem from ancient Saxon custom; Scandinavian ultimately. Rather a lot of United States “thinking” on such things is Saxon.

    The Boy Scouts puts the limit at 9. Yes, just 9 people form a “patrol”. More than that will inherently fragment and become unmanageable. The senior patrol leader can at most manage his own “9” of 9’s.

    The Romans did it by 10’s — decurions, centurions, and so on.

    “The problem is that it dosen’t scale; you want a bigger society, you need the structure of laws, taxes, government and whatnot to deal with the inevitable commons and free rider problems.”

    Precisely and that is why you also cannot have “direct democracy” on a large scale. The largest instance of almost direct democracy is Iceland where you still have a parliament but the path from MP to citizen is very short.

    “Of course, if you are one of the free riders or you are profiting from damaging the commons, then I could see how Libertarian rhetoric would be attractive.”

    Such a person is not a libertarian; but as you say, a free rider, a cuckoo, a counterfeit.

    In a libertarian society there would be nothing to ride! But such a thing could not exist for long or on a large scale.

    So what is almost libertarian? A republic with many layers of government. My city council is responsive to my own presentations which I’ve made a couple of times. If they weren’t I could easily be elected to that council, and is indeed how most people end up on the council is they want something done.

    Feudal society is vaguely similar; the King has barons and the barons have earls or something like that. It is a deep heirarchy but functions to delegate the actual daily grind down to lower levels of government, where Scottish grinding may be a bit different than Welsh grinding.

    Would responsible libertarians poison the commons? Not deliberately; for part of the libertarian philosophy is mutual respect; I don’t tell you what to do, and you don’t tell me what to do. We are of course free to choose mutually agreeable behaviors. I won’t piss in your backyard and you won’t piss in mine.

    Scale it up; I won’t pollute your air and you won’t pollute mine. I don’t take or demand what I don’t actually need.

    But I’m not stupid; nothing prevents you from claiming that I am polluting your air when in fact I am not; and demanding compensation fraudulently. That is human nature and common but it is not libertarian. So I have to be smart and aware that most of the people I deal with are neither libertarian nor honorable.

  85. John Hartz says:

    Michael2: You state:

    The socialist approach is boilerplate; someone in the United Nations will dictate exactly what every child is to learn and when to learn worldwide! Can you believe it? Of course you can; but are you appalled? Probably not.

    I say:

    What a load of poppycock. Get real!

  86. Michael 2 says:

    John Hartz “What a load of poppycock. Get real!”

    That’s it? I came all the way here expecting a “real” rebuttal and that’s all I get? How rude!

    Anyway, I’ll accept your response as affirmation of my estimation of your response and maybe even affirmation of my estimation of the purposes of global educational intentions.

  87. Eli Rabett says:

    M2, your fantasy life is not real high on John H or Eli’s list of things not to laugh out loud at.

  88. Michael 2 says:

    Eli Rabett says “M2, your fantasy life is not real high on John H or Eli’s list of things not to laugh out loud at.”

    You deserve a response but I find myself almost at a loss for words. Who besides you has a list of things to not do?

  89. John Hartz says:

    Michael 2:

    Who besides you has a list of things to not do?

    God.

  90. Eli,
    I suspect that you do need to add the,

    Ms. Rabett is thankful that Prof. Rabett occasionally heeds her pointing out that he is nuts.

  91. Pingback: Matt Ridley on Ecomodernism | …and Then There's Physics

  92. Pingback: Some more thoughts on Ecomodernism | …and Then There's Physics

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s