By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
robzo100 on 08 June 2017
Edit Thread
Final-Fan said: 1.  I agree that the story doesn't explicitly say that it's a collective goal, not a goal for each individual country, but as you yourself pointed out earlier*, a reasonably educated reader can guess that it's not $100 billion per year from each of many countries.  The grammar of the passage does not support the interpretation that it could be a US-only goal and that other countries have other individual goals.  ("richer countries, like the US, are supposed to send $100 billion a year in aid by 2020")


* You:  "I don't see how countries whose GDP's are only a fraction of the US's would pay the same 100 Billion"

2.  I just totally disagree that the story was ambiguously written on that point.  Even after knowing that you managed to misread it, I think readers can reasonably be expected to interpret it correctly. 

3.  I agree with you that the individual story doesn't make it clear that the agreement is non-binding in the sense that there really aren't any penalties for failing the targets.  On the one hand, this has been said many times in other stories, but on the other hand a story titled "What exactly is in it" ought to mention something like that!  However, the "floor not ceiling" idea simply means "at least this much", that is, the goal is not meant to put the brakes on donations if that much and more actually starts coming in.  Lastly, contrary to your expectations, I would be quite surprised if they have put together anything as formal or specific as you mention for the breakdown of who is expected to give what. 

To me, it's plain that the only real difference between "pre-2020" and "post-2020" is that the donations are supposed to be ramping up.  Countries are not expected to go from nothing to $100 billion (collectively) the day the ink dries on this agreement.  By 2020 the hope is that (at least) that amount will be flowing in (but not limited to that amount, therefore "not a ceiling"). 
___
Regarding the other points: 
4.  Meta-game of power:  Totally disagree with you here.  Firstly, Trump has showed the world pretty clearly that he runs things differently from his predecessors on a personal level already.  Secondly, it's not a good idea to trash international agreements just to prove what a rebel you are:  you should act on the merits.  And he already quit the TPP!  How many international agreements does he have to pull out of before he's a rebel?  Quit NATO?  The United Nations? 

5.  Individual vs. collective effort:  You already discussed this with palou.  In the end, I don't think you ever came up with a counter to his argument that individual actions would NOT be likely to solve the problem due to the incentives to behave otherwise; whereas the sum total of individuals might collectively agree to a structured effort that they would not spontaneously do as individuals.  It seemed to me that you just basically dropped the debate. 

My argument would be that the societal environment can be tilted so that individuals are not disincentivized (or not as much) from individual efforts.  Whereas the sort of scenario he painted, which I believe would be an example of "the tragedy of the commons", might well obtain absent such collective activity.  It is important to note that the state is not the only possible solution to this sort of conundrum; a society can create norms that reinforce behavior that is beneficial for everyone.  But it cannot be solved by looking purely at the individual level.  That is exactly the problem in this case.  And in the case of humans messing up the environment, I think it is evident that "society influencing individual behavior" has not yet solved the problem and expecting it to suddenly do so now with no state-level encouragement is, I hope you'll agree, just fantasizing. 

6.  "science not being what people have been led to believe(and the nature of science itself)":  Wow, after you throw that parenthesis in there, I really think this would take up its own thread.  I'm all for a good debate, but maybe we should save this one for later, or choose this one and leave the others for later (if ever!)? 

1. When does guessing ever become reasonable in journalism? 2. fine. 3. A "floor" on something causal and non-binding is a legitimate oxymoron, two opposing concepts in clear daylight. 100-billion a year by 2020 when the country with the biggest GDP will only give 3-billion between the 4 years of 2016-2020? Where is the reasonable "ramping up?" I don't see it. Countries should not be expected to make such a drastic jump - we agree. So where is the reasonable ramp?

4. Your argument is fair that he has gained the reputation he is seeking. I don't think it's bad point. But it doesn't inherently refute the importance of reputation. Reputation, character, etc., they have to be maintained and consistent. This is human nature, consistency is the glue that holds together our perceptions of one another, and even inanimate phenomenon as well(societal/psychological patterns). Holding steady, but then eventually backing down can signal others in power that there is in fact a strategy for getting through one's defenses. Yes, it's true, this is part fo what makes people hate Trump, but for others it is still a great strength that other international players don't have.

5. You say I dropped the argument. His last counter as it related to the tradgedy of the commons(TC) was noted. I explained that the acknowledgement of such social phenomenon(Sociology is actually one of the newest scientific disciplines) is part of what empowers the human race to move forward. The same can be said of other new mental/physical inventions, like the internet which also give individuals power that they did not have before. The TC, as a representation of the shortcomings of individual vs. collective behavior, does just that. It is taught in colleges mainly, but as we progress and become more intelligent it makes its way into the audiences of younger minds more easily as it is passed down through public(schools) and private means, the internet(books too) being one again; a video of the phenomenon on youtube, or an explanation on wikipedia, etc. It's resources like these that allow us to hold individuals more accountable for their actions - the question is whether each subsequent generation is willing to take on the new torch of responsibility they are handed down, or if they rather keep it enshrined in collective institutions. There's no arguing that the means for individual empowerment advances with each subsequent generation.

6. What's to talk about? We had this debate. I heard no scientific rebuttals against my points that abided by scientific standards  as opposed to casual blasphemy. Scientific standards are absolutely imperative when it's being used as your main defense of funding for Climate Change. If we disagree on that last point then yes "science not being what people have been led to believe(and the nature of science itself)" is a fair emphasis. I acknowledge Climate Change, but it's solutions are not as sound, and it's causes are not as clear as people have been led to believe. I even left it off with the notion that saving humanity through a financial focus on planetary migration could actually make more sense than reversing or slowing down climate change. Per dollar the agreement may actually be very ineffective - a statement that I can make because the science is simply not expansive enough(planetary climate is an expansive/expanding subject) to refute otherwise. People in favor of the Agreement recognize the hurdles of the proposed solutions not doing enough or being overly hopeful, surely you've seen this.

I've acknowledge all of your points while conceding on #2. I haven't dropped anything, but stood firmly on my arguments and rebuttals. You may have misinterpretted my ettiquete in calling a good debate a truce or valid point fair as concesions, but it is only my way of trying to say a fruitful debate was achieved.