Cost-benifit analysis: If the green lobby knew the meaning of this phrase, they would realize how ludicrous 90+% of their proposals sound.
I'm not saying that buying eco-credits is anywhere near as important as stemming slavery, I'm just saying cost-benefit analysis ignores all qualitative benefits--e.g. clearer skies, lower overall pollution, freedom, etc.
Cost benefit should be considered, but it shouldn't be used to write off major concerns.
If you rtfa, you'd see that the cost benefit analysis is one of the stronger points: How many trips were avoided, how many packages not mailed and how many phone calls not made because of the internet?
Trying to measure one's carbon footprint, and then lessen that footprint is noble. Profiting through some obscure calculation that includes some things but not others is opportunism.
In the context of environmentalism a "cleaner planet" is mostly an intangible because on that scale it mostly doesn't affect anyone directly or fast.
Also it might be nice if you didn't feel the need to call things "retarded". It seems pretty unnecessary.
In the context of environmentalism a "cleaner planet" is mostly an intangible because on that scale it mostly doesn't affect anyone directly or fast.
Then it's the job of those who suggest we worry about it to properly portray effects that are worth worrying about. (BTW, I'm not a climate-change denier, just looking for concrete solutions.)
I called this argument as being "retarded" because it equates those in opposition to carbon credits as morally repugnant, on the same level as slave-traders. That's so extreme it doesn't even make sense.
the point presented is that you can't expect a pure cost/benefit analysis of presenting any real justification, or lack thereof, for an intangible concept. how much, in dollars and cents, is freedom from slavery worth?
And my point is that you can, and should if the actions to be taken are worthwhile.
For instance, a cost/benefit analysis for not having slavery is rather straight forward from the nation's point of view. There are several points in favour of abolition, ( national economic benefit from taxes/increased workers, improved relations and trade with other countries) and few against beyond the direct comfort of the slave owner.
C/B has little to do with dollars and cents and everything thing to do with gaining the best possible outcome from a particular action. This is the entire point that newt0311 was making: The green lobby needs to present a case that shows there are significant benefits (overall) to the costs associated with each of these changes. It's not a hard argument to make, and shouldn't equate being compared to slave-traders.
freedom is not the sum of the value of its effects, nor is a cleaner planet.
What I am saying is that if you intend to take a course of action, and more importantly attempt to convince others that your course is correct, you need to present a proper analysis of the benefits and costs of your option so that they can be compared with the benefits and costs of other actions.
The nobility of abolitionists isn't why 600,000 Americans died in the Civil War. Nobody gave a damn about slaves. The end of slavery is just a fortunate outcome.
So what exactly was the cost/benefit to the conductors of the underground railroad? Sounds like a lot of cost for no personal benefit.
My original point was that cost/benefit analysis can and SHOULD be involved in decision-making processes, but simply looking at emancipation as a 'fortunate outcome' is more than oversimplification.
----
In the future, it might be helpful for you to note that making sweeping generalizations usually doesn't help your argument: i.e. "Nobody gave a damn about slaves" really doesn't make me think you're taking a scholarly viewpoint on this debate.
yes, this.
If you talk to many environmentalist they see it very much as a moral argument. Perhaps it's a different moral level for many of us, but not to everyone.
As such while his argument used an extreme example, I would not consider it as nonsensical.
And that's the problem. They may as well have a Bible in their hands and go knocking on doors.
More people can be swayed by explaining that a particular action has a direct benefit and is therefore more effective than the current one than by saying "repent for the end is near" and "you're a backwards hillbilly who is evil for not seeing this my way".
As much as I appreciate river_styx's contribution to the development of River's Law, I really think my mental flight of fancy is superior. Or at the very least would make for a better motivational poster:
"Don't Say 'Retarded', Or She'll Kill You With Her Brain"
Be clear though that I was attacking the argument itself, not the poster.
Essentially when making a cost-benefit analysis you need to have a shared understanding of what constitutes costs and benefits.
In the case of slavery the justification puts the costs and benefits on the side of the enslavers, little cost and huge benefit. If you look at the side of the slaves there is the opposite huges cost and no benefit.
This is the same with the environment only in this case I suspect that mostly the people on the other side of the equation are future generation who get a damaged planet but none of the instant pay-off from our wastage.
The people on the other side are indeed the future geenrations. Just that right now, it seems that they will be getting a dysfunctional economy instead.
EX: Pollution from coal fired power plants killed a lot of people in several ways. A dramatic example: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=873954
But, when it comes to less dramatic damage it's easy for them to fight it.
External costs of coal have been quantified by ExternE.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf68.html
The report of ExternE, a major European study of the external costs of various fuel cycles, focusing on coal and nuclear, was released in 2001 [...] The external costs are defined as those actually incurred in relation to health and the environment and quantifiable but not built into the cost of the electricity to the consumer and therefore which are borne by society at large. They include particularly the effects of air pollution on human health, crop yields and buildings, as well as occupational disease and accidents. [...] The report shows that in clear cash terms nuclear energy incurs about one tenth of the costs of coal. Nuclear energy averages under 0.4 euro cents/kWh (0.2-0.7), less than hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (2-10 cent averages in different countries), gas ranges 1-4 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.05-0.25 cents/kWh average.
The EU cost of electricity generation without these external costs averages about 4 cents/kWh. If these external costs were in fact included, the EU price of electricity from coal would double and that from gas would increase around 30%. A summary plus access to more recent work is on ExternE web site. http://www.externe.info
The green lobby often measures cost in "oh, we're so rich and privileged anyway and any amount of emissions that's less than before is worth it"... I.e. unrealistic coefficients. We're simply not at the point where a few grams of CO2 here and there is death or survival in 2050.
In reality, society is interested in solutions with the highest reduced emissions pr. cost-unit, but the green lobby don't seem to be too interested in giving those out.
Not if the externalities are internalized (tautology).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities#Possible_Solution...