The science of climate change is only a small part of the discussion
|
Upon reading Clive Hamilton’s comments in yesterday’s Crikey (Hamilton: denying the coming climate Holocaust, Item 3), I opened up my copy of Martin Gilbert’s ‘The Holocaust: The Jewish Tragedy’ at random to page 230 where I discovered this passage:
The challenge for Clive Hamilton is to explain how an argument over appropriate policy for the future is equivalent to the Holocaust where millions of people were deliberately put to death. The Jews and the Gypsies and the homos-xuals and the clergymen and the trade-unionists and others of Europe did not die through inaction, but rather they were deliberately and systematically hunted down, and murdered in what can only be described as an industrial scale slaughter. Hamilton can make as many fancy-pants arguments he likes about ‘consequentialism’ and what-not. To equate climate change scepticism (however defined — Kevin Rudd has three different definitions) with the Holocaust is the mark of a moral dwarf. It is a good thing that Hamilton speaks of morality and the science of climate change, because it turns out there is more to climate change than just the science. Climate change involves scientific questions, economic questions, technological questions and, yes, moral questions too. Unfortunately we run out of the science very early in the piece. Even if we assume, for argument sake, that the IPCC version of the science is correct, that still does not take us very far. So imagine we know with more than 90 percent confidence that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, what next? We have exhausted our scientific knowledge already. The questions, “Should we do anything?” “What should we do?”, and “How should we do it?” remain unanswered. These are not scientific questions at all. In the first instance there are economic questions, “How much will doing ‘something’ cost?” Perhaps it would be cheaper to do nothing and adapt. Perhaps not. We simply do not know. The Australian Treasury modelling does not answer that question; indeed it doesn’t model the actual policy under consideration. But Hamilton invites us to consider ‘morality’. So let’s raise some of those questions. Who should pay the costs of fixing the climate change problem assuming that it can be fixed? Perhaps the industrialised world; after all it is they who first caused the problem. But it is the developing world that will benefit most from solving the problem, so perhaps they should pay. On the other hand, it is previous generations that caused the problem and future generations that will benefit, so why should current generations bear all the costs? That suggests that the costs of climate change abatement should be financed through some or other long-lived debt instrument that will transfer the burden (as well as the benefits) to future generations. Should costs be apportioned on an aggregate basis or a per capita basis? And so on. There are heaps of unanswered questions and issues beyond the science that so excites the commentariat. All we really know is that the Australian government and other world governments want some sort of cap and trade scheme, and this is because of the science. What is lacking is a discussion of the issues beyond the science. This important consideration has been lost in the name calling. In simple terms, the science makes up a very small component of our decision making. All the other aspects of the decision have not been adequately debated, and have not been well explained to the community, and labelling doubters and dissenters as mass-murdering war criminals is not appropriate in a democracy. Sinclair Davidson is a professor in the School of Economics, Finance and Marketing at RMIT University and a senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs. |
|
|
|
36 Comments
Eh? How does that work?
So the professor of economics wants to tell me what is, or is not, appropriate in a democracy. The political candidate has said he accepts the science, will not be distracted by terminology like “denier” and now wants to move on to the politics of action. Perhaps the professor could could leave off the Holocaust distraction (a complete dead end if you ask me) and instead raise some economics issues for the debate? Or even explain what he means by “do nothing and adapt”. Is that like stop and go at the same time?
The 363 kg ( 800 pound) gorilla in the room in this debate is world population. Population is the biggest threat environmentally, far in excess of any climate change issues which one can consider. Every person on earth has environmental footprint, a component of which is the absorption of fossil fuel. This finite resource will eventually run out, so adaption is essential. Nobody, and I mean nobody at the political level is addressing this issue. The world has been able to sustain population growth in the last 200 years as a consequence of burning fossil fuels. Every man woman and child on earth with a few rare exceptions of hunter gatherers absorbs a component of fossil fuel usage. This includes nuclear power.
Each level of technological advance has enabled us to extract more food from the environment, but with an ongoing environmental impact which is destined to destroy the world environment it remains unchecked.
The government’s CPRS is only a token gesture as a political sop because politicians are afraid to tell the community the truth. They pledge adherence to carbon dioxide reduction but are deferring the impact on the community because they are afraid of the political repercussions.
Despite getting a bad press, Malthus was correct, but he did not foresee the impact of technological advance, which is being purchased at the cost of the environment. The 800 pound gorilla is the incapacity of individuals substantially influenced by superstitious repetitive behaviour, including religion, to fuel world population growth with its rising environmental impact through industrialisation.
A sustainable human relationship with the environment requires such a dramatic shift in cognitive behaviour that it is politically inconceivable. All the chest beating about climate change will come to nothing as the eventual impact is outside of the life span of most individuals currently making political decisions. It is conceivable that one could have a harmonious environmental relationship with the world’s population with say 1 billion people, with a current Western lifestyle with total dependence on renewable resources.
However to reach such a position would require the elimination of over 5 billion which would make the Holocaust look like a Sunday school picnic, and seriously erode property values to boot. Such a position howevercould be achieved over a period of say 250 years if each couple was restricted having one child.
So here we have a classic case of prisoners’ dilemma with nobody being prepared to make the first move, and a fundamental preoccupation with growth at any cost.
It’s pretty straightforward Sinclair. All the questions you raise cannot be addressed while denialists and their cynical cheer squad continue to muddy the waters (whether for political or economic benefit). You are right in that there’s a long way to go before solutions can even be properly scoped but we cannot move off the starting line until the flat-earthers accept (as you appear to have) that there is a real problem that needs addressing.
As well, Clive was careful to note he was not seeking to diminish the horror of the Holocaust, rather to put the impending crisis and those who are foolishly dissmissive of the issues into the context of Holocaust denialism. With all possible respect to survivors and their kin, isn’t it clear that the consequences of a general acceptance of the Climate change denialists far outweigh the consequences of accepting the ravings of a few neo-nazi nutjobs?
Real population control is kind of anathema to us when we are creatures who count reproduction among our most powerful drives. The only way the population is going to get under control is when it’s done by external forces. And that’s going to be a hell of a thing.
because they’re the ones that will be screwed most by not solving the problem…
Not sure about the exact mechanism of breaking down the analogy there. But in general I agree with you, Sinclair. Clive Hamilton uses the same sort of useless, dumbed-down, righteous-indignation, dog-whistle tactics that some of us have accused the border-security paranoids of using to score votes out of xenophobia. Clive Hamilton is welcome in my Australia, but I’ve got no use for him in my Parliament.
This article, in my view, suffers from a number of blind spots:
1. The author may be unaware a major, possibly principal, factor in the delay in climate mitigation by governments has been (continues to) the persistent obfuscation and denial of the issue, for almost 20 years, by lobbyists of the fossil fuel industry. Had the issue related to an invasion by a foreign army, or a looming impact by a comet, where the danger is obvious, governments and the public would most likely have responded much earlier. By contrast, the popular confusion between the climate and the weather, enhanced by massive disinformation campaign on the pages of mainstream media, has lulled many to a false sense of security.
2. The article makes little discrimination between “passive” denial - a natural psychological defence mechanism - and deliberate obfuscation by vested interests, comparable to but exceeding the scale of efforts by the pro-tobacco lobby, including the criminal dimension of such obfuscation if and where perpetrated with full knowledge of the consequences, whether to individual smokers or, in the present instance, to humanity.
3. The article does not appear to acknowledge the global scale of the looming tragedy of climate change, and the implications of sea level rise, desertification, fires and extreme weather events to billions of people around the globe.
4. There is little point in relativistic comparisons between holocausts. In the humanistic paradigm, where each and every life is an entire universe, each life lost in the Nazi holocaust, or Rwanda, or Viet Nam, or Iraq, or the Victoran fires, or the Sahel drought, is equally tragic.
5. In taking an issue with Clive Hamilton’s moral stand on climate change, the article hardly acknowledges this stand is undertaken on the basis of scientific knowledge BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, and that, to date, only very few people have had the insight into the abyss of climate shift and the moral courage to take a stand.
Dr Andrew Glikson
Earth and paleoclimate scientist
17-11-09
Straw man anyone? To say that Hamilton equates climate change denial with the Holocaust is plain wrong at best and deliberately deceptive at worst. Hamilton compares Holocaust denial with climate change denial and then concedes there may be issues with his analogy. He certainly doesn’t compare the slaughter of millions of people with arguing over the science of climate change, or indeed arguing over the steps that should or should not be taken to address climate change.
?? So imagine we know with more than 90 percent confidence that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, what next?
Its much more than 95 percent, the standard statistical 1 in 20, depending on your scientific understanding. It is not just our imagination, and there is no strongly competing hypothesis. So there is at least a 19 out 20 probability that our time is nearly up, especially if we take no action now. How lucky to you feel today?
?? What next?
Reduce carbon emissions ASAP. What else? Well, we can keep pumping out the CO2 and use up the earth till we all drop dead, from climate change or other ecosystem breakdown. This is not a directly offered solution by the sceptics, but that is the inferred argument. It is a death sentence.
?? On the other hand, it is previous generations that caused the problem and future generations that will benefit, so why should current generations bear all the costs?
It is the current generation (larger than all previous generations, and still wanting to grow and increase carbon emissions), that is still burning the fossil fuels, after being told its very naughty. It is our responsibility right now.
We always hope that future generations will benefit, but on general trends it is very unlikely.
We are supposedly the wealthiest and luckiest of all nations in the world. We also have the highest per capita carbon emissions in the world. If we cannot make some small sacrifices, who else can or will? Growing our population in such a situation is the height of irresponsibility. It will merely increase the load on our ecosystems, from which all economic wealth ultimately derives, and in the unavoidable shortages increase the total amount of all time suffering.
The general argument being advanced by opponents to ETS is that cap and trade, is being done dishonestly, and I do not believe that it will or can be done honestly. I believe that cap and trade is chosen by governments as means of doing nothing, or worse still, of increasing our emissions.
I do believe that Prof. Sinclair Davidson is a typical species of economist that denies our world is full, our ecosystems are being squeezed to death, and this has nothing to do with his tenets of economic growth.
I would like to add a comment regarding the role of economists in the looming climate impasse.
Whereas climate scientists tended to underestimate the pace and scale of climate change, for example in IPCC projections, now exceeded by natural observations (Rahmstorf et al. 2007; Copenhagen 11-12 March science meeting; Oxford 28-30 ‘Beyond 4 degrees’ science meeting), it appears only few economists have been listening to the scientific evidence.
Thus some economic forecasts project limited reduction in GDP even under extreme climate shifts, such as at about +4 degrees C, where sea level rise on the scale of tens of meters and extensive desertification and high-energy weather events would devastate delta and low river valley agricultural zones and coastal cities where hundreds of millions of people live.
Yet it is economists, rather than the scientists, governments have been - in the main - listening to all these years.
I am tempted to indulge in a bit of name calling myself. I shall confine myself to a few observations about Sinclair Davidson’s article.
First, I actually agree that there is a difference in moral culpability between those who are active participants in genocide and those who knowingly, but passively, allow avoidable death and suffering to occur. I know some will disagree. And one of Clive’s points was based upon the far greater numbers of people likely to be condemned to a shorter and more miserable life when global warming is not halted.
But beyond that, there is little in this piece which makes much sense.
The IPCC report is a very conservative assessment, arrived at after much lobbying, negotiation, and compromise. It is based upon science which is now several years old. As has been pointed out, the reality is almost certainly far worse.
Suppose we accepted, for the sake of argument, that the reality of climate change is no worse than that described in the IPCC report. To state that “… anthropogenic global warming is occurring … (has) exhausted our scientific knowledge…” is quite disingenuous. Science can tell us not only what is happening, but why it is happening, and, just as importantly science can tell us the likely consequences of our decisions.
One problem we have at moment is that decision makers seem to be ignoring the science and basing their decisions upon wishful thinking (or deluded economists).
I agree, and, I expect, scientists will agree, that the decisions which need to be made are based upon more than science. Economics and morality provide important inputs to the decisions which must be made. And it is politicians who must make the decisions.
“How much will it cost to do X?” is an important question. Equally important is “how much will it cost NOT to do X?”. Then there are questions like, for example, “What is the cost to humanity of species extinctions?”. Does “cost” even enter into such a moral question? Is this something an economist can answer? I doubt it.
The issue of “Who will pay for it?”, is, of course, important. But it is not an excuse for avoiding action. When the Japanese threatened to invade Australia, the question of how we should pay for the defence of Australia was important, but less important than the need to defend Australia. I believe that one of the decisions made at that time was for the Federal Government to take, from the states, the power to tax incomes.
I agree completely that over-population is an even more important problem than global warming. But, I believe, global warming requires a more urgent response. It would be nice if we could tackle both.
I wonder if the author, someone claiming to know of economics, wondering upon the costs of mitigation, is aware of this study that shows that there is a strong consensus amongst practising economists that action is cheaper and wiser than non-action.
http://policyintegrity.org/publications/documents/EconomistsandClimateChange.pdf
I think the term ‘science-denier’ rubbed him up the wrong way. I can’t guess why.
Steve, you say “All the questions you raise cannot be addressed while denialists and their cynical cheer squad continue to muddy the waters (whether for political or economic benefit).” The IPA is funded by big polluters including mining and energy companies who pay the likes of Sinclair to present a point of view. The IPA is the cynical cheer squad.
Morals and values influence how we vote, what we buy and who we help. You’d have to agree that the majority of people will always try to improve their own situation before helping others. A form of hip-pocket politics. On this basis, climate change policy will struggle until people start to feel the pain of its effects. That’s going to take some time. Even if we start seeing half of the world dying in droughts we will probably still be debating what to do, because as far as we’re concerned, the other half are doing ok.
Those worried about climate change should aim for the hearts and minds of ordinary folk. Forget about the politicians, they’re popularists. At the crux, this issue is no different to issues about how we deal with immigration, foreign exploitation of workers, trade with corrupt regimes. People only want to help others where the cost to them is little.
I do acknowledge that history-denier is a very different beast to a science-denier.
A science-denier, be they climate, evolution, vaccination etc really don’t hold a candle to a history-denier be it holocaust, pogroms or the slaughter of indigenous populations.
Whilst I do enjoy how the accusation gets under their skin. They do squeal ad-hom, and they do know their fallacies, and have the amplifying internet means to get their oh-woe-is-us out and how harsh the nasty alarmists. I do worry that the sceince-deniers will get mileage from this.
Everyone commenting here has missed the point, except Steve Milburn who is, with respect, wrong.
Sinclair Davidson: “So imagine we know with more than 90 percent confidence that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, what next? We have exhausted our scientific knowledge already.
The questions, ‘Should we do anything?’ ‘What should we do?’, and ‘How should we do it?’ remain unanswered. These are not scientific questions at all. In the first instance there are economic questions, ‘How much will doing ‘something’ cost?’
Steve Milburn: “All the questions you raise cannot be addressed while denialists and their cynical cheer squad continue to muddy the waters (whether for political or economic benefit). You are right in that there’s a long way to go before solutions can even be properly scoped but we cannot move off the starting line until the flat-earthers accept (as you appear to have) that there is a real problem that needs addressing.”
Malcolm Turnbull, speaking to Alan Jones on 2 October: “Can I just say to you part of the problem with the debate is that far too much time is spent on the essentially theological question of whether we should do anything at all about climate change and far too little time is spent on the detail.”
So let me offer an alternative to Steve’s statement.
All the questions Sinclair raises cannot be addressed while the debate is bogged down in name-calling between what believers call “denialists” and what non-believers call “leftists”, with mutual accusations of global conspiracy, each to sell out the other for their own ends. Believers are far too easily distracted and inflamed everytime someone challenges the theory.
There is a law of diminishing return in trying to convince those not already convinced of the AGW theory. The polls are clear; the majority believe to a greater or lesser extent. The last ones to come onside will take enormous amounts of energy to convince, and that will still leave some who will never be convinced. How about applying some of that reasoning energy to proposing practical solutions, not just engineering solutions but economic and financial ones.
A show of more intelligence and practicality than has been typical in the policy debate so far, might attract a lot more converts, than the continued rounds of horn-locking and name-calling can.
Reality having been found wanting, even the ad hominem is getting desperate.
Mr Davidson states “The challenge for Clive Hamilton is to explain how an argument over appropriate policy for the future is equivalent to the Holocaust where millions of people were deliberately put to death. “
Why is this a challenge for Clive Hamilton?
He didn’t state that they were equal. Not at all, you couldn’t even infer that from his piece.
With the greatest respect I believe Prof Sinclair Davidson is missing the point of Clive Hamilton’s excellent article.
It’s not “How are we going to deal with the crisis?” It’s “When are we going to recognize the enemy and neutralize it?”
Those powerful vested interests who have knowingly been deliberately sabotaging political and community efforts to reduce CO2 emissions in the US and Australia for the last 10-15 years, in my view, are indeed no better than Nazis.
In fact they are a hell of a lot worse because they have probably condemned billions of our grand children’s generation to suffer a future we would not wish on them, if not to die prematurely in horrible circumstances.
Their agents, the deniers and sceptics remind me of those notables in the UK in the ‘30’s, who praised and collaborated with the Nazi fascists and announced they were no threat and they could solve a lot of the world’s problems.
The motive of the vested interests is to retain and expand their power, which comes from their control over the energy we use, a similar motive to the Nazis and a similar (human) energy that we also see in business leaders who have disowned their humanity and ethics in favour of gaining and retaining power.
The deniers and skeptics exhibit similar symptoms to those of the fascist supporters: fear of the powerful, whose wrath may be avoided by joining with them or simply an inability to face the yet another world war and happy to support anyone who tells them it’s not necessary anyway.
Well it’s in times like this when we all have to stand up and have the courage to do what’s necessary to survive.
One of the major outcomes I predict, as we move through this time of choice and crisis is that there will be recognition that Australian (and US) democracy has allowed itself to be infiltrated and corrupted by such vested interests and their supporters in the bureaucracies.
Both have shown they will always misuse any power they are given – in this case to wrest control of govt policy on Energy and Climate Change and ignore the consequenses for the planet whose health we depend on.
The sooner this happens the sooner we can start to address the real problem. In fact it’s high time to ‘declare war’ on emissions and in a state of war, to nationalize recalcitrant industries, as happened during the last world war.
Mr Davidson asks;
Who should pay the costs of fixing the climate change problem assuming that it can be fixed? ……….. On the other hand, it is previous generations that caused the problem and future generations that will benefit, so why should current generations bear all the costs?
He may not have noticed but the past generations are dead and cannot be expected to contribute much to future mitigation and reductions in climate change. He may not have noticed that future generations are not here yet and if things go badly they may not arrive at all.
The only people who can do anything are those able bodied and intellectually able people who now occupy the planet. These people can continue with business as usual which involves the generation of private wealth, or they can swing their considereablke turrets onto the problem in hand. It’s a difficult problem, but we have tackled difficult problems before with some success. The erradication of smallpox, immunisation against diseases that killed millions of children before they were ten, putting man on the moon, the hydrogen bomb, the Big Mac and Kentucky Fried chicken have all been developed in the last 100 years. It can be done. People who did these things did not agonise over whether past generations present generations, or future generations would pay, they just got on with it.
Market economists such as those who inhabit the IPA have continually advised that all we have to do is privatise everthing and the market will take care of us. So why insn’t that working for this one? What’s left to privatise? Is it just the revitalisation of wWorkchoices that is neccessary
His claim that the developing world will get most of the benefits is also interesting. Apart from the fact that the northern and southern atmospheres are not closely coupled, we all end up with the same air and to a large extent the same problem. It may have escaped his notice but India and Pakistan have the bomb. When millions in India, Bangadesh and Pakistan are starving due to water shortages and crop damage by saltwater inundation they will get very cross. They may express this in unfortunate ways that may have some collateral effects on the rich bast…ds who caused it. Over to you Davo.
Dr Harvey Tarvydas
Dr Harvey Tarvydas
The thing is to understand media more profoundly and in its complexity.
Clive Hamilton was creating a ‘look’ that would have to be dealt with by ‘them’.
Who out there knows how to create a ‘look’.
It’s clever and likely to be a more potent influence than imagined by the debaters to date.
Man’s corruption (its what man’s is good at in all its forms) of natures climate influencing/control mechanisms is such an old story that you have to ask have all those clever ommenters and scientists been asleep for decades or is there an agreement that its now ‘media time’.
President J.F. Kennedy’s scientific advisors had him convinced by the time he gave his inaugural speech (1961) that global warming was an urgent problem so when JFK did the brilliant and extraordinary space science inspiration dance ‘the moon in 10’ he went straight on to say how we will find the solution to global warming.
We have now the brilliant new science that gases like CO2 can be liquefied.
Well I am off to invent something new, better and spectacular – but oh hell this is Australia, by the time the noise of my voice circles the globe a million times no one here will have heard in the land that is first in everything.
Many will disagree, but I for one accept Sinclair’s point that to kill deliberately is morally worse than to knowingly allow someone to die. As Clough put it, “Thou shalt not kill; but needst not strive // Officiously to keep alive”
But, even if you do agree that deliberately is worse than knowingly, then I ask you, how much so? Twice as bad? Ten times? One hundred times? Pick a number dear reader. I will not impose one on you.
Let’s continue with the supposition that global warming will reduce the population of Bangladesh by (for convenience) 50%. The current population of Bangladesh is 140,000,000 people, give or take.
Now divide 70,000,000 people knowingly allowed to die by the number you chose earlier, and compare the result to 6,000,000 people deliberately killed.
In short, if you believe that deliberately killing someone is 10 times worse than consciously allowing someone to die, then, Bangladesh alone makes climate change denial (statistically) somewhere in the ballpark of the Jewish Holocaust.
Those that are certain that climate change is a myth are of course exempt from this calculus.
I think when debating climate change issue it is entirely appropriate to use the analogy of the holocaust. The best evidence we have is that climate change will cause the death of millions of people, and the likely impoverishment of many more. People will die as their lands are flooded, or the snows on which their irrigation is dependent fails, or disease patterns change. These effects are well and truly agreed upon.
It is a moral tragedy that commentators such as Sinclair Davidson fail to apply their understanding of the holocaust and support whatever moves they can to alleviate climate change and concomitant human death and misery. He argues about the cost, but cannot apparently see the analogy with the holocaust. Would a reasoned debate about the cost of saving Jewish lives been moral and appropriate in 1940?
A further analogy of course is with those who doubted then, and now that the holocaust actually took place. There will always be people who do not believe in any particular piece of evidence about anything. This is not a rationale for more discussion. His belief that after 20 or 30 years it is reasonable to continue to discuss the issue in terms of the minutae of policy, really a delaying tactic given the time that has been available to discuss the issue, is breathtaking in the lack of the morality he apparently yearns for.
Mr Davidson fails to understand that the doubters and dissenters are now irrelevant in this debate, and that there is a moral failing in delaying action, apparently until they all agree.
It is also a moral failing to suggest that taking a leadership position on this issue is useless, and that any impact Australia may have is minimal. The holocaust analogy of that proposition is that the work of, say, Poland’s Irene Sendler who saved more than 2500 jewish children from the Warsaw ghetto was pointless as other jews were still killed.
We have abundant evidence that we have a problem. We have any number of studies showing that acting now is the cheapest and most moral action we could take. There is no shortage of studies indicating that we are quite capable of abating anthropogenic CO2, see this month’s Scientific American.
Congratulations to Mr Hamilton. It is fully time that this issue is framed in harsh terms that most people can understand.
While the tone of this comment is harsh, I wonder whether such comments made about the developing holocaust in 1940 would seem harsh now.
THE PRICE OF THE EARTH
I always thought it is the lack of reverence to nature by H. Sapiens (or part of the species) which is at the roots of the environmental crisis.
Could a species go any lower than huggling over the price of the atmosphere?
Dr Harvey Tarvydas
Great Australia first again.
When the great Australia settles down and catches up with its thoughts it will claim the 1st status for the grandest Keynesian experiment for nearly a century proving the theory and sending the Global Financial Crisis back to where it came from as the unwanted banker’s poop that it is.
And notice, every bloody seriously competent nation copied us.
Well its PM Rudd and his team that were and deserve the 1st status right now while the great Australia is so busy blabbing on about everything unimportant (except the ‘climate’ thing – but its not blabbing about that it’s trying to find out if its real and should start blabbing) and if it can destroy the credibility of the man and his team who earned the ‘1st status’ then that status will belong to us/Australia, again, when we stop blabbing and have a serious moment (which we are capable of – everyone knows that)
I think Davidson’s comments highlight the dangers of viewing all modern issues primarily in terms of economics. As he says, we can’t put quantitative figures on things like this. Should we even try? No one would ever agree on anyone’s results. There are too many variables involved. Maybe that’s why the whole CPRS thing seems such a dead end - it’s applying the wrong kind of risk management strategy to an issue that demands more than just economic strategies.
Also comparing the Holocaust to climate change (in terms of human wickedness) is a bit like comparing apples and oranges - one was about hate, perhaps the other about greed (or sloth).
Sinclair, according to Lord Stern’s remarks the other day on George Negus’s show, you do not exist because there is nobody who isn’t a looney who still believes that APG global warming (or is it climate change?) may not exist. I have one question. Can anyone tell me what all this global taxing of the people is likely to achieve in terms of degrees saved. I know what it is going to do to our bank accounts - its going to reduce them at a rate to be decided by unelected international bodies over which we have neither say nor influence.
I wonder whether we have any sovereignty left in fact? Maybe we should just check up on what our leaders have signed away over the last 12 years.
In any event, I am not so sure that taxation prevents global warming; although it may influence climate change because that term implies it could go either way.
I am not a climate change sceptic. I believe climates change. They always have. But I am not sure, even if we master zero point energy tomorrow, we can make any dent in whatever direction it happens to be heading. I think the sun, the moon and the asteroid belt probably have more to say about it than we could ever have.
But I tell you what will really change things on earth. If the IMF and the World Bank stop selling off third world assets to their business buddies, in particular the rainforests of Sumatra, Borneo, Brazil, Equador, Congo etc (the Amazon is disappearing at the rate of an area the size of Belgium each year) we ought to be able to cool things down considerably -not to mention increase absorption of greenhouse gases by day. Got me!
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
Scott Grant
I am glad you actually agree that there is a difference in moral culpability between those who are active participants in genocide and those who knowingly, but passively, allow avoidable death and suffering to occur.
The latter occur in swaths every hour just because we can’t sacrifice some of our SO deserved comfort and whatever to feed them and send them clean (non-poisonous water) even while many of us are actually trying to help as much as possible (what’s possible, none of them are white and there are lots of wealthy non-whites in the world) and those good whites helping are sacrificing everything (the size of the human brain’s compassion centre varies from absent to huge – very unpopular scientific fact) and blah, blah, blah.
Mature Scientific fact: the Amazon jungle (in original form till recently) alone SUCKED up 40% of the worlds CO2 due to its special nature and concentration.
It would have been cheap to take all those natives and house them in Hilton Hotels around the word to have them leave the jungles alone instead of clearing them to grow beetroot.
We’ve been dumb and pathetic for ages (and greedy). The recalcitrant smarties are as natural as nature. We’ve all been there as such, oh good some of us are changing, so is the climate.
Prof. Davidson,
With respect, I think you (and many of the commenters supporting you) have completely misunderstood the argument made by Hamilton.
The comparison is between the moral consequences of holocaust denial / revisionism, and the moral consequences of denial of anthropogenic climate change. The comparison is NOT between those that committed the acts in the Holocaust, and those that deny the science today.
That is, we’re comparing Minchin and Irving, not Minchin and Hitler. This seemed quite obvious to me. Every piece of bluster and dismissal along the lines of “anyone that think’s I’m as bad as the Nazi’s is mad, let’s ignore him” is therefore quite misguided.
Your statements, such as:
“The challenge for Clive Hamilton is to explain how an argument over appropriate policy for the future is equivalent to the Holocaust where millions of people were deliberately put to death”
and:
“To equate climate change scepticism (however defined — Kevin Rudd has three different definitions) with the Holocaust is the mark of a moral dwarf”
and:
“labelling doubters and dissenters as mass-murdering war criminals is not appropriate in a democracy”
[Edit]
One further point, for your and your readers’ reflection. When you say that “Hamilton can make as many fancy-pants arguments he likes about ‘consequentialism’ and what-not”, are we to take it as your opinion that, firstly, ethical arguments are ‘fancy-pants’ and worthy of scorn? That we should instead respect only arguments with greek letters and graphs, or perhaps just ‘feel’ our way to a course of action via the ‘truthiness’ in our gut (a la Colbert as GW Bush)? And secondly, does ‘consequentialism’ as a principle REALLY have the same status as ‘what-not’?
If you’re an economist, you’d probably cringe at anyone who, for instance, confused correlation with causation and decried any ‘fancy-pants’ attempts to use econometrics, and ‘what-not’. So, perhaps you could show a little respect for ethical reasoning rather than baiting the intellectual-bashing crowd.
Regards.
Sinclair Davidson I’m surprised you got to be a professor of Economics. Maybe reading comprehension is not a prerequisite for that you job.
Clive Hamilton did not label climate change “doubters and dissenters as mass-murdering war criminals” as you misleadingly put it.
He viewed climate change denialism from two moral perspectives, one “consequentialism” and the other the “duty ethic” or related “virtue ethic”.
His personal view straddles these two which is why he states, “…climate deniers are less immoral than Holocaust deniers, although they are undoubtedly more dangerous.”
Hamilton’s error (one of tactics rather than morality) was to wander into the emotionally charged issue of the Holocaust in his search for an analogy. It causes too many to fail to see the forest for the trees.
Did Davidson misunderstand Hamilton?
Anti-holocaust-denial laws in Germany and elsewhere are not there just to avoid hurting people’s feelings. Holocaust denial is believed to undermine assurances of never letting it happen again.
In other words, holocaust deniers are accused of aiding and abetting the next holocaust.
james mcdonald
“In other words, holocaust deniers are accused of aiding and abetting the next holocaust.”
That sounds like an argument for consequentialism. And climate change deniers are aiding and abetting a catastrophe of far greater scope than the Holocaust, as horrific as that was.
Thinking it over again, Hamilton did worse than committing a Godwin offence, and Davidson showed considerable restraint in his commentary.
Some climate skeptics do rely on a body of science to inform their views, even if they are guilty of selective bias and misjudgment, giving one small body of evidence preference over a much bigger one.
In contrast, no holocaust denier has any excuse. For Hamilton to claim a moral equivalence between the two is to give comfort to the argument that holocaust deniers, too, have a bit of credible evidence to fall back on.
What Hamilton does, is to support a word trick undermining 65 years of fighting against holocaust denial. Which in turn, using the “never again” argument, brings the next holocaust half a step closer.
Hamilton should hang his head in shame.
james mcdonald
“For Hamilton to claim a moral equivalence between the two…”
He didn’t and so the rest of your argument is redundant.
Bruce,
Strictly speaking you’re correct, I should have been more precise. Hamilton compares the relative evils of climate denial and holocaust denial from a range of ethical frameworks lifted out of Wikipedia, concluding on balance that “the answer to the question of whether climate denialism is morally worse than Holocaust denialism is no, at least, not yet.”
Rather than saying “for Hamilton to claim a moral equivalence between the two”, I should have said “for Hamilton to give moral comparisons of the two an appearance of intellectual respectability”.
Either way, it’s argument by demonisation of the other side. And it’s also a dilution of efforts to prevent the Holocaust, a singular crime of premeditated industrialised murder of an entire race, ever happening again.