Dave, "neither bold, nor new, nor an idea" was *right there*!
Like the commenters here, I am annoyed that Mounk padded out his list of things that are "short on impact but big on virtue signaling" with things that are in fact long on impact. Phasing out gas stoves is a good idea! Lighting is estimated to account for around 2% of carbon emissions; cutting that by 80-90% would be significant! And yes I realize that it is a mistake to engage someone on these points when they are obviously writing in bad faith, but that just makes it more annoying, not less.
Not to take away from your otherwise excellent piece, but the idea that the 'population bomb' predictions were wrong always kind of annoys me. I mean, yes, it turned out less catastrophically than we feared- but the main reason is that our preferences on the number of children we wanted changed- and in many places the reason they changed was that we understood the threat and wanted there to BE a future for any children we did have. Personally my preferred number of children, as an environmentally conscious teenager, dropped from 7 to 1. And as it turned out, I had none. Also, it's not as if the overpopulation crisis has been averted just because the average age has begun to rise. Currently predictions have us stabilizing at 10.4 billion in 2086. Odds on our making it that far? Not great. There are still a lot of things that give me hope- but none of them involve people having more children to feed the continuous consumption machines that drive our current, unsustainable systems.
I think the decline in the number of children women have has been down to lifestyle choices related to economic development, with people making choices as to how many children they have because they can, thanks to access to contraception, plus increased urbanisation, lower infant mortality, girls being educated etc..
Illustrating the point about pragmatism, and its limits. Until the 1990s, environmentalists generally favoured fairly close regulation of pollution. Rightwing critics said that this was anti-market and it would be better to use either taxes or tradeable permits. But as soon as environmentalists got on board with this, the right changed tack and either
(a) if environmentalists went for taxes, right said only permits would do and vice versa or;
(b) went for Lomborgism
So, at least outside Europe, we've ended up with a patchwork of regulation, tech subsidies and partial price schemes.
Exactly. Here in Canada, the federal Conservatives are running a campaign to remove the carbon tax. And guess what?? The conservatives advocated for the carbon tax 20 years ago and a right-leaning government was the first to implement it (in BC). The hypocrisy is unbelievable.
Per the Lynas / fairy example: maybe I've watched too many episodes of The Twilight Zone, but if a fairy offered to solve climate change with a wave of the wand, I'd assume there's some sort of catch - like "the globe would stop warming... by entering a new ice age!" That case has so many of flavors of bullshit.
Fair point. I usually don't pay Mounk much attention. Substack decided to include his latest essay in my weekly personalized recommendations yesterday morning... which led me to read it... which then led me to vent.
Uncountered propaganda and lies become "a point of view". If you've been bathed in the Blood of the Liberal Lamb, yet another debunking of some NYT columnist or random rage merchant is the oldest of hat, but there is utility in reminding people that they are in a fight and their opponents are hard at work.
Mounk somehow managed to write an entire essay on the failings of environmentalists and somehow didn’t include their biggest actual mistake (opposing nuclear power).
Another long-winded paean by my pal Dave to notions that provide great reading but are of little practical concern. I'm all for stopping pollution (6 known carcinogens in every breath you take- and only 40% of lung cancer victims are cigarette smokers) the chance of killing off the oil industry is none till some smart person figures out how produce adequate energy to heat and cool the 8 billion humans that inhabit the planet, and with AI that number keeps jumping.
Electric cars (no one's buying and production has been cut) and other brilliant but ineffective social policies notwithstanding, minor annoying policies like banning plastic straws and their progeny really are a waste of time. The planet will take care of itself, our financial masters will keep us satisfied with eating bugs until they figure out how to bleed the last of our paychecks dry while providing innovative investment opportunities that will lead to further economic collapse (every 10 years or so), all while Blackrock figures out how they're going to rebuild Ukraine once Russia wins this war of attrition that has begat 1 million Ukrainian casualties in a war concocted by bad US policy that derives from Black Rocks needs.
Face it, the environment is on the back burner until BRIC attacks the USs' financial system based on energy and monetary policy, with the resultant war causing a dramatic drop in pollution. Those that are left will then have clean air. Voila! Ist ganz einfach,
Dave, "neither bold, nor new, nor an idea" was *right there*!
Like the commenters here, I am annoyed that Mounk padded out his list of things that are "short on impact but big on virtue signaling" with things that are in fact long on impact. Phasing out gas stoves is a good idea! Lighting is estimated to account for around 2% of carbon emissions; cutting that by 80-90% would be significant! And yes I realize that it is a mistake to engage someone on these points when they are obviously writing in bad faith, but that just makes it more annoying, not less.
Mounk's mockery of the threat of gas stoves is the one that got to me. They're poisoning children and the industry has known about it for decades.
Not to take away from your otherwise excellent piece, but the idea that the 'population bomb' predictions were wrong always kind of annoys me. I mean, yes, it turned out less catastrophically than we feared- but the main reason is that our preferences on the number of children we wanted changed- and in many places the reason they changed was that we understood the threat and wanted there to BE a future for any children we did have. Personally my preferred number of children, as an environmentally conscious teenager, dropped from 7 to 1. And as it turned out, I had none. Also, it's not as if the overpopulation crisis has been averted just because the average age has begun to rise. Currently predictions have us stabilizing at 10.4 billion in 2086. Odds on our making it that far? Not great. There are still a lot of things that give me hope- but none of them involve people having more children to feed the continuous consumption machines that drive our current, unsustainable systems.
I think the decline in the number of children women have has been down to lifestyle choices related to economic development, with people making choices as to how many children they have because they can, thanks to access to contraception, plus increased urbanisation, lower infant mortality, girls being educated etc..
Illustrating the point about pragmatism, and its limits. Until the 1990s, environmentalists generally favoured fairly close regulation of pollution. Rightwing critics said that this was anti-market and it would be better to use either taxes or tradeable permits. But as soon as environmentalists got on board with this, the right changed tack and either
(a) if environmentalists went for taxes, right said only permits would do and vice versa or;
(b) went for Lomborgism
So, at least outside Europe, we've ended up with a patchwork of regulation, tech subsidies and partial price schemes.
Exactly. Here in Canada, the federal Conservatives are running a campaign to remove the carbon tax. And guess what?? The conservatives advocated for the carbon tax 20 years ago and a right-leaning government was the first to implement it (in BC). The hypocrisy is unbelievable.
Per the Lynas / fairy example: maybe I've watched too many episodes of The Twilight Zone, but if a fairy offered to solve climate change with a wave of the wand, I'd assume there's some sort of catch - like "the globe would stop warming... by entering a new ice age!" That case has so many of flavors of bullshit.
While I agree with you, isn't it a waste of time to spend even a moment on either Mounk or Lomberg?
Fair point. I usually don't pay Mounk much attention. Substack decided to include his latest essay in my weekly personalized recommendations yesterday morning... which led me to read it... which then led me to vent.
Uncountered propaganda and lies become "a point of view". If you've been bathed in the Blood of the Liberal Lamb, yet another debunking of some NYT columnist or random rage merchant is the oldest of hat, but there is utility in reminding people that they are in a fight and their opponents are hard at work.
Mounk somehow managed to write an entire essay on the failings of environmentalists and somehow didn’t include their biggest actual mistake (opposing nuclear power).
That’s just embarrassing.
Another long-winded paean by my pal Dave to notions that provide great reading but are of little practical concern. I'm all for stopping pollution (6 known carcinogens in every breath you take- and only 40% of lung cancer victims are cigarette smokers) the chance of killing off the oil industry is none till some smart person figures out how produce adequate energy to heat and cool the 8 billion humans that inhabit the planet, and with AI that number keeps jumping.
Electric cars (no one's buying and production has been cut) and other brilliant but ineffective social policies notwithstanding, minor annoying policies like banning plastic straws and their progeny really are a waste of time. The planet will take care of itself, our financial masters will keep us satisfied with eating bugs until they figure out how to bleed the last of our paychecks dry while providing innovative investment opportunities that will lead to further economic collapse (every 10 years or so), all while Blackrock figures out how they're going to rebuild Ukraine once Russia wins this war of attrition that has begat 1 million Ukrainian casualties in a war concocted by bad US policy that derives from Black Rocks needs.
Face it, the environment is on the back burner until BRIC attacks the USs' financial system based on energy and monetary policy, with the resultant war causing a dramatic drop in pollution. Those that are left will then have clean air. Voila! Ist ganz einfach,