Trump Paris Meta-Decision

[Final-Fan]

robzo100 said:

Final-Fan said: 1.  Your argument relies on the assumption that the grammar of the article allowed the interpretation that the $100B/yr figure applied only to the USA.  I've already explained that this is not the case and provided my evidence.  ("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"))  But I will go into more detail.  

Consider the statement "richer countries, like the US, are supposed to send $100 billion a year".  "like the US" is a parenthetical phrase, which modifies, clarifies, or otherwise concerns itself with the preceding phrase "richer countries".  In this context, the US is one of these richer countries.  This statement logically allows the possibility that richer countries like the US are supposed to collectively send $100B/yr., and it also allows the possibility that richer countries like the US are supposed to individually send $100B/yr. each.   It does not logically allow the possibility that the US and no one else is supposed to individually send $100B/yr.  This interpretation directly conflicts with the plural "countries" and is not compatible with the way the statement was written. 

This being the case, and since you already said that the idea of many many countries each individually sending $100B/yr. is crazy, that eliminates one of the two logical possibilities, leaving only the other one, which in fact is the correct information.  Also, supposing for the sake of argument that they were wrong not to specify between these two possibilities, they are still not at all at fault for not excluding the possiblity you are mentioning (that the US alone is supposed to individually send $100B/yr.), because in actuality they did not ever introduce that as a possibility. 

3.  OK.  As for the guesswork, I did say those were just my personal speculations.  I agree to calling it guesswork, especially since I was not building on any particular evidence better than "gut feeling". 

4.  True, but it's less than would get done with all the states participating. 

5.  I acknowledge what you said, but nothing you said convinces me away from the position that "I very strongly disagree that [what you mention] has succeeded [i.e., permeated the culture in sufficient numbers and degree] to such a great extent that individual action alone will suffice to meet the challenges we face as a global society regarding those issues without action at the state level."  Fishermen in the Grand Banks destroyed their own livelihood.  I should note that the article does mention that local fishermen warned about the problem but bigger trawlers kept overfishing.  In that sense this is an example of where the individual level was unable to overcome the negative impulses of sub-state-level groups above the level of the individual due to lack of state-level intervention in response to the warning of the individuals.  In other words, large fishing companies overfished it, not locals, while the locals were not able to get the government to respond in time.  However, this caveat in no way makes the situation a worse comparison to what we are talking about; if anything, it makes it even closer. 

6.  You're mistaken if you think I have not already done quite a bit of looking.  I also disagree that removing national level action will be a net positive, though you do raise a good point that states, cities, private groups, and yes individuals will fill some of the vacuum. 

I would certainly agree that collective power isn't the answer to everything, but I do think it is the answer to some things.  Individual level action didn't get us to the moon and I don't think it ever realistically could have.  And it won't IMO be a substitute in the coming two to four decades for national and international cooperation on the issue of climate change.  How familiar are you with the problem humanity faced concerning the ozone layer a few decades ago, and how we dealt with it? 

I will admit that the attitude of some people, "let the government do everything, and I will do nothing about the issue that I am not literally forced to do by the government", is certainly a problem, but I really don't think "government doing nothing, so the people will have to do everything individually without support" is going to be better able to solve the problem in the short term future. 

I would like to take a moment to examine the aside "(reversing/slowing climate change is a very straight-forward inside-the-box idea)".  I do not really see how that is an idea that is either inside or outside the box.  There aren't really many possibilities for the climate other than "go down, stop changing, go up slower, go up faster".  If you're referring to ideas like "how to live better with the climate change", I assure you that is within the scope of what is being envisioned, but it is seen as better if it changes less.  Can you give an example of what you meant by "out of the box"?  I assume you didn't mean "we don't have to worry about climate change if we all move to space stations". 

1. "Richers countries like the US" made me think, logically/grammatically, that, for example, US, France, Canada, would each spend the 100B per year. Not the case, but can be implied by the journalism - that's wrong, especially for a central detail. Don't see what else there is to discuss

5. So we can agree that individualsim isn't infallible. All I really argue is that the capacity for individual repsonsibility grows continually along with, and often as a result of, human progress(technology, rights, health-physical/mental). Too many people have a static and bad view of individualsim. TC was a perfect example of how human progress(in this case through education[sociology]) breaks down the static nature of individual capacity. We can grow beyond our limits and encompass strengths that may have once been exclusive to collective institutions. Internet, accessibile technology(apple/microsoft), social media, human rights(women/minorities can now pitch into society more), have allowed individual responsibility to grow stronger if not shackled by the overlapping efforts of what I interpret to be a huge stride/wave of collectivism stemming from a long relatively peaceful era after WW2 and later Vietnam when domestic issues took the spotlight over international ones. We made great collective progress during those times. But they've gone unchecked for while - I believe in balance.

6. Familiar with the Ozone layer problem and CFCs in the research I've done on Climate Change, but probably not as much as you are. I'm aware that regulations have played a crucial role. that being said I understand these were issues dealt with some 20-30 years ago, the societal climate has changed greatly since then. But yes, collective power was effective.

So yes, out-of-the-box would refer to things besides the obvious slow/stop/reverse climate change. Coping with changing climate is not in that box even if it has been explored as a biproduct of Climate Change research. Planetary migration I've already mentioned. Living in space shuttles? idk, maybe? These are long-term goals that are hard to envision. the pace of techology, how it looks, feels, smells, impacts our lives, is a very hard thing to predict. I don't know what forms those two solutions(Coping and Migration) will take when they finally effect our lives through practical implementation. As for the other out-of-the-box ideas? Well, that's the thing, they're outside the box, we haven't thought of them yet.

And individualists will, generally speaking, unanimously praise the power of capitalism, free markets, and competition, in spurring the most innovative solutions. Ideas that are completely new to the market, like space travel, are often accimpanied very well by collective institutions a la the Moon Landing, but once they get steam it would be nice let the private market(individuals) have a go at them. Trump is pushing in this direction not only legislatively but also publically in how he shapes his actions, opinions, and general rhetoric to the world stage.

1.  Well, $100B would be almost as big as 1/3 of the current Canadian federal budget (an increase of 30%+), but fair enough.  However, if this was the case, I have to wonder why you said earlier, "I don't see how countries whose GDP's are only a fraction of the US's would pay the same 100 Billion", when now you say you thought that was exactly what the agreement was saying.  Please explain that to me. 

Additionally, if you thought many countries would be paying $100B/yr. each, why did you say, "Source1 states 'richer countries, like the US, are supposed to send $100 billion a year in aid by 2020 to the poorer countries' misleading us to think this is specifically a US-goal."  Please explain how that isn't directly contradicting what you are now saying, considering what you chose to put in bold, because to me it seems like these are mutually exclusive statements (I read your older statement as saying you thought only the US was called on to pay $100B/yr.). 

5 & 6.  I would agree conditionally that the market is the best system for allocating resources that are already close to market viable* because of how it does so organically and dynamically, without the need for central planning that simple cannot be all-knowing, whereas the free market lets individuals react en masse to their needs, on average working things out naturally—and the condition I place on this is that there are circumstances where the market of individuals and groups of non-state actors will begin to act in various ways detrimental to society and the people in such a way that the free market will not self-correct but rather bad things will happen, some examples being the market will succumb to the malign influence (e.g. monopolies), or a vicious cycle of some kind will be created (e.g. tragedy of the commons).  Industrial pollution is another example where the market does not reliably stop bad things from happening.  I am inclined to believe that you are correct that the potential downside to companies being caught engaging in such practices is both more likely to happen and likely to be more impactful as time goes on and technology democratizes the flow of information, but again I must strongly disagree that such mechanisms are strong enough to "take over" from state regulation and intervention. 

* So, as you already said, things like space exploration and inventing the Internet are best handled by Al Gore governments that use collective political will to carry out such long-term investments that may not turn a profit soon or ever.  (If it's the sort of development that anyone can take advantage of, it's not necessarily advantageous for a market actor to spend lots of resources developing something that competitors will be able to take advantage of almost as well as it can, no matter how much the society in general values such a thing and would buy it.)  Then the market takes over and fills space the Internet with porn. 

7.  One interesting point I would like to make is the fact that market systems have a "boom and bust" phenomenon that is well documented and this phenomenon is definitely not attributable in general to state regulation or intervention (though I would not claim that it has never caused a boom or bust).  These cycles can be extremely damaging to the individuals affected even if the market system in general bounces back in short order, which to my limited knowledge would be a very arguable claim.  So state regulation here would be aimed at moderating the market to try to avoid or mitigate these boom and bust cycles.  I suppose a different solution might be for a nation to not even try to moderate the cycle, but try to save up in good times and pay out welfare to the market "losers" in bad times, but that requires both foresight and the political willingness to implement such a welfare program (which would be much larger in the bad times).