Four Flavors of Doom: A Taxonomy of Contemporary Pessimism https://quillette.com/2019/06/26/four-flavors-of-doom-a-taxonomy-of-contemporary-pessimism/ excerpt: In his short, provocative book Has the West Lost It?, the Singaporean diplomat Kishore Mahbubani identifies a curious paradox. In many respects, the world has never been in better shape than today. People live longer, healthier, more peaceful, and safer lives than at any previous time in history. According to Mahbubani, this enormous improvement in the human condition is a result of Western ideas and practices—modern science, liberal democracy, free markets—spreading to other societies. And yet, surveys show that nowhere on Earth do people have such a bleak view of the future as in the West. Has the West indeed lost it? Westerners today are pessimistic about a whole panoply of things: overpopulation, global warming (or “global heating”), the ravages of neoliberalism, rapid deforestation and species extinction, soaring inequality, the rise of far-Right populism, mass immigration, the epidemic of depressions and burn-outs, the creeping “Islamization” of Western societies, robots taking over the world, or perhaps just the terminal ennui awaiting us all at the End of History. Looking beyond their specific concerns, it is possible to identify four prototypical kinds of pessimism. Each has a different take on the course of human history, but all share a general skepticism about the idea of progress. Thinking about these four basic types reveals non-obvious connections between pessimists from widely divergent ideological backgrounds, and makes apparent the shortcomings and pitfalls of each type. more at the link
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climat...icle-11649258860?mod=hp_trending_now_opn_pos5 Climate-Change ‘Solutions’ That Are Worse Than the Problem The political assault on fossil fuels comes at the expense of the poor, peace, and the environment. By Jason De Sena Trennert April 6, 2022 12:31 pm ET If you can afford a Tesla, you probably find it hard to imagine that there are some 3.5 billion people on Earth who have no reasonably reliable access to electricity. Even less obvious may be the way rich countries’ pursuit of carbon neutrality at almost any cost limits economic opportunities for the world’s poor and poses serious geopolitical risks to the West. Anyone on an investment committee has likely spent untold amounts of time discussing ways to mitigate the impact of climate change, but they’ve likely never heard anyone state one simple and incontrovertible fact: The widespread exploration and production of fossil fuels that started in Titusville, Pa., not quite 170 years ago, has done more to benefit the lives of ordinary people than any other technological advance in history. Before fossil fuels, people relied on burning biomass, such as timber or manure, which was a far dirtier and much less efficient source of energy. Fossil fuels let people heat their homes in the winter, reducing the risk of death from exposure. Fossil-fuel-based fertilizers greatly increased crop yields, reducing starvation and malnutrition. Before the advent of the automobile, the ability for many people to venture far from their hometown was an unfathomable dream. Oil- and coal-burning transportation opened up access to education, commerce, professional opportunities, and vital services such as medicine. There has been, and remains, a strong correlation between the use of fossil fuels and life expectancy. Limiting the availability of fossil fuels in the name of climate activism would cut off many of the world’s poor from these benefits. Climate activists worry about a potential “existential crisis” decades down the road, but poor people, really poor people, face an existential crisis every day. Even for those who aren’t among humanity’s most unfortunate, rising energy prices force serious economic trade-offs. Purposely eschewing America and Europe’s own natural resources increases costs to consumers, raises the cost of doing business, and limits economic growth. Viewed with this in mind, the debate over emissions seems like an upper-class problem. If Chinese belligerence and increasing authoritarianism over the past two years have taught us anything, it is that no amount of trade and international cooperation will instill what are generally considered to be Western values in other civilizations who have no real desire to adopt them. Trusting China to do anything other than what is directly in its own best interests, especially when it comes to the trade-offs between economic development and climate issues, would seem to be in direct conflict with history and common sense—and it poses serious geopolitical risks to the international democratic order. The war in Ukraine has emphasized how leaving European and American fossil fuels in the ground can put the West at the will of dictators, increasing the risk of atrocities, war or even the use of weapons of mass destruction. An easing of regulations on drilling in the U.S. and easier regulations on liquefied natural gas exports to flood the global market with oil and natural gas would do far more than any sanctions to stop Vladimir Putin’s barbarism. The climate-change solutions the West is pursuing also pose a danger to the environment. The lodestar of the environmental movement today appears to be electric vehicles. One would be hard-pressed to find a product more dependent on resources from extractive materials. An electric car requires almost four times as much copper as an automobile powered by an internal combustion engine. The widely accepted goal of having 30% of the world’s vehicle sales be electric by 2030 would require enormous investments in mining industries that are decidedly not eco-friendly. And whatever emission cuts America and Europe manage to make by forcing electric vehicles and other inefficient technology on consumers will be negated by emissions from other nations. Regimes like Russia and China won’t put aside their geopolitical ambitions for climate activism; developing countries like India won’t sacrifice economic development and their peoples’ well-being in the hope it’ll slow global warming. Sadly, environmentalism has grown into a secular religion in which reasonable debate is regarded as heresy. But if politicians and voters can approach climate change with an open mind, they’ll see that economic growth is likely to solve the issue without heavy-handed government intervention. History has shown that free markets produce incredible leaps in human ingenuity. The greater access the world has to all sorts of energy sources, the faster humanity will discover new technologies that are more environmentally friendly. Rationing fossil fuels would only r****d the process of decreasing carbon emissions and cost lives in the process. Mr. Trennert is chairman and CEO of Strategas, an investment-strategy, economic, and policy research firm.
That Op-Ed continues the problematic argument that because fossil fuels have done a lot to advance technology and were superior to burning wood that we should keep on using them. That would be like saying that because lead was very useful and it's use advanced a lot of technology. that we should keep on using it. Also yes it's true that electric cars do require a lot more copper and other resources than internal combustion but things like copper can be recycled where as gasoline can't.
yep. that's one word for it. another is simply that it represents a different perspective from that of everyday run-of-the-mill alarmists
so what is the "truth"? serious question or, alternatively, if he is wrong or incorrect on specific points, on what point(s) is he wrong about?
The truth is that - EV's are far more efficient than the ones using fossil fuels (not sure why he says they are inefficient) - China is making a gargantuan effort to fight climate change - not because of the West but because it has a lot to lose and unlike us, understands the gravity of the situation - Copper mining is limited to just a few areas and copper is endlessly recyclable unlike fossil fuels - 3.5 billion people not having access to reliable power - that means not having electricity for one hour a month qualified you - basically all of India. You have ultra rich people in India driving Tesla's who are categorized as not having reasonably reliable electricity being used in his opinion piece. That's bonkers to say that. Yeah so, this article is more opinion than fact
let's take them one at a time. I do not see where he says EV's are less efficient than the ones using fossil fuels. What I DO see him say, instead, is: "And whatever emission cuts America and Europe manage to make by forcing electric vehicles and other inefficient technology on consumers will be negated by emissions from other nations." there is a BIG difference between arguing that EV's are a socially "inefficient technology," on a global basis, given the problems with minerals for batteries, providing infrastructure, etc etc etc, and arguing on the other hand that a single EV is more efficient than a single gasoline-powered vehicle. Right now for better or worse, gasoline powered vehicles are a very efficient way to provide transportation to 8 billion people on the planet.
China is also making a gargantuan effort to continue building new coal-fueled power plants. and the statement "unlike us, understands the gravity of the situation" strikes me as extraordinarily naive and simplistic
not sure your point about copper. what I read is "An electric car requires almost four times as much copper as an automobile powered by an internal combustion engine." Copper mining historically is extraordinarily destructive. Yes existing copper can be recycled, but if you're talking about 8 billion people having EVs by 2050, you're gonna need more copper than is available from recycling. But again I'm not sure I understand why this point is incorrect or "False" capital F, given your comment that you prefer "Truth" capital T
Lots of problems with his statement, beyond the fact that no one is "forcing" electric vehicles on anyone, it's unclear what he means by inefficient technology. You seem to have found a definition that may or may not be what he intended, but still, the data to back up that EV's are inefficient has yet to be produced. Why is fossil fuels inefficient? The problems for minerals haven't been defined to be any worse than the problems with oil which have caused far worse environment impact when you consider the total damage done by oil spills, ground water contamination, and other pollution. This argument isn't very tight and seems to be based more on assumptions than data or science.
That cooper mining is more destructive environmentally than fossil fuels. That's not true given the points I made above.
No, conservatives are the ones being naive and simplistic, letting their hate for China interfere with objective analysis. yes China is in the midst of an energy crisis which will in the short term increase fossil fuels CO2 emissions. You yourself have stated that economic growth shouldn't be sacrificed. But their plan and execution is still a massive increase in nuclear and green power sources - far more than the US gov't is initiating. So to argue that China isn't doing it's part therefore the US should do nothing is a spurious argument at best.
it's an op-ed piece, it is attempting to do something as an op-ed piece. If you are looking for a thorough meta-analysis of EVs versus petroleum-based vehicles projected over the next fifty or one hundred years, I'm sure those exist but you will have to look elsewhere for such analyses. I suspect that the author here is familiar with such analyses and has written this op-ed in light of such analyses . . . but that is just a suspicion on my part. And I think the point about inefficient technology remains. EVs are largely affordable now only because they are government-subsidized. The U.S. can afford such subsidies. I do not think the U.S. example can be easily extrapolated to other areas of the world. If you look at Africa and other places, vehicles are often bought off of the U.S. used- and damaged- secondary markets: think of the ISIS terrorist truck a few years back that had some plumber from Texas's logo still visible on the door in photos. So no, EVs are not yet an "efficient" way of providing transportation to satisfy the needs of 8 billion people, either for their own personal transportation or for the infrastructure required to get needed materials to those 8 billion people (including planes, trains, trucks, and cargo ships etc).
no one is arguing (not me anyway) that "copper mining is MORE destructive than fossil fuels." That is putting words in my mouth. I simply observed that copper mining has been extraordinarily damaging historically (think Bougainville copper), and the point being that if you were to attempt to convert the global transportation fleet by 2050 to EVs, that will require maybe more copper to be mined between now and 2050 than has been mined previously throughout history (don't quote me on that, I don't have copper figures at my fingertips). The point is simply that EVs are not cost-free. They have benefits. They have costs. And right now the costs for metals and minerals that current-technology EVs need is fairly substantial.
I will grant you this. I just don't pay enough attention to "conservatives" to know whether your characterization is accurate or not I would love to see some analysis on this comparison. Not trying to be disagreeable, I just have not seen such analysis. I would be surprised if China is particularly more transparent about this than the U.S. I am also much more familiar with China's coal mining than I am with its development of green power sources I am also not sure who has argued "China isn't doing it's part." What I did read in the op-ed was the following: If Chinese belligerence and increasing authoritarianism over the past two years have taught us anything, it is that no amount of trade and international cooperation will instill what are generally considered to be Western values in other civilizations who have no real desire to adopt them. Trusting China to do anything other than what is directly in its own best interests, especially when it comes to the trade-offs between economic development and climate issues, would seem to be in direct conflict with history and common sense—and it poses serious geopolitical risks to the international democratic order. and And whatever emission cuts America and Europe manage to make by forcing electric vehicles and other inefficient technology on consumers will be negated by emissions from other nations. Regimes like Russia and China won’t put aside their geopolitical ambitions for climate activism; developing countries like India won’t sacrifice economic development and their peoples’ well-being in the hope it’ll slow global warming. If you have specific criticisms of those two actual sections of the op-ed, I'm willing to listen to what you have to say.
crappy op-ed piece that guy needs to go back to basic school and learn moore's law and how technology drives down cost at the rate EV prices are dropping, it will soon be more affordable than their gas-powered distance relative... will happen this decade
