The only other person who has dared to be at all optimistic about global warming is Al Gore, in fact, whose message on receiving the Nobel Peace Prize included the comment that GW is a great opportunity to create international fellowship.  Somehow, though, he did not quite make it sound Clintonianly cheery.

Of course, in the vision of Bill Clinton, the people who seem likely to have the most "fun" are the venture capitalists, not unlike how it was in the 1990s.

So the next question is: Is Hillary on board?  Is it finally time for all of us Hillary-doubters to surrender and pass over to her camp?

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Climate Change is the result of the economic systems that Bill Clinton is in such awe of: it is NOT a Godsend, it is a bloody great mess that we are now struggling to get out of. By simply leveraging the existing systems that created the problem it will never go away.

There may be some incremental changes for the better, but the consumer culture has its claws into the rest of the world, so while the USA and Europe ekes out a few percent reduction in GHGs, the newly industrialised world will be pumping out even more because the consumer culture has just taken its foot off the pedal in the West.

The Mayors Agreement will knock a few thousand tonnes of CO2 off the global total each year, Wal*Mart will look great, so can carry on selling the cheap goods from China that are ramping up the greenhouse effect, and we can carry on spending and driving and flying and air conditioning because the system says that living in the consumer culture the only way to be. Nothing will get better while we accept that system.


Keith Farnish www.theearthblog.org

As long as we frame climate change as a battle between wallets and morals, we will further the debate at the expense of action.  But as soon as people realize that you can actually make $ doing this stuff, a failure to act looks like stupidity from both angles.  Keep on this message!

While $$$s matter, then the problem will not go away. This is a hard reality that most people will not accept: if you live comfortably in a culture that depends on money for its existence then of course you would be stupid not to fight it - but then, I don't live comfortably in this culture: I am very uncomfortable with it.

The value that we put on economy is defined by the economy itself, it is self-perpetuating. The system says that the system is good, so it must be good - and don't worry about the little person in the corner saying that the system is lying. Stamp on them! Nothing to see here.

If people think that you can make money and save the planet then people will support that - of course they will. But you can't make money and save the planet - not enough to keep the system running. If everyone refused to buy half of the goods they currently buy, the economy would collapse overnight. But that might save the planet.

See what I mean?


Keith Farnish www.theearthblog.org

The monopoly control of energy is like a huge tax built into the world economy.  And yet sufficient energy is freely available everywhere on spaceship earth.  Why pay that energy tax to multinational corporations.  Why fight wars for them?

Go get 'em Bill!  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

 

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

You have no idea how silly your post sounds. Feel free to throw everyone who doesn't obey the culture into the dumpster - for my part I'm going to look forward (and act towards) a future where the planet actually matters more than gross human consumption.

I recommend you watch "What A Way To Go" and then look at what you have just written.

The bulls*** was directed at Bill, BTW, not you.

Keith


Keith Farnish www.theearthblog.org

Indeed, we might have to.  If organic, free-range, potatoes cost cost more than bulk chemical potatoes, then maybe we have to skip the Starbucks to pay for them.

(If a really nice bicycle costs a few grand, that might not be so bad, if we are saving that much on fossil fuels.

And by the way, not having heard Hillary's speech, why doesn't she push the jobs,jobs,jobs that her husband does?  it's still the economy, stupid, and Bill seems to think it's a winner.

Great comment - and worth noting that the phrase "organized markets" has been bandied about in a lot of places lately, and it strikes me as one of those phrases that never costs you a vote, but means very different things in different places.

Your concern is spot on: a functioning market this side of the iron curtain doesn't need an "organizer".  That said - and as many a Grist post will attest - the Smithian market ideal is a rare thing, especially in an industry that is as large and so heavily regulated as our energy sector.  

My personal feeling is to give the benefit of the doubt initially, but keep asking the question.  If we are talking about the creation of a market environment that is at least temporarily sensitive to historic subsidies and part of a constructive transition, I'm OK.  If it also means that we're going to let market forces work while still maintaining some regulation to provide the usual consumer protections, that's fine too.  But if it means sticking lots of bureaucracy in a process that doesn't need it and/or a fear of market forces, that's troubling.

In any event, let's keep watching.

Remember, he's not in gov't. He can't "organize" anything via government bureaucrats. He's talking about an initiative that mixes philanthropic and private sector efforts -- it's quite innovative and doesn't at all fit into the old command-and-control models for which some lefties were (justifiably) criticized.

grist.org

It's a way to get around market "failures", if you want to categorize them as such, although I think some of these things (like research) we would agree are better handled by government anyway.  

But not to get off the point, governments, as Bill points out in the speech (great speech) already buy copious amounts of goods, so it makes sense to "organize" the markets they are buying from, so that economies of scale can be realized -- but it could also help considerably to organize the cities and localities to guarantee long-term stability of markets (organizing them, again), exactly so that private firms know that a market will always exist -- my premiere example being the subway industry, which collapsed partly because of the lack of stability of the market.

So, yes, I think it's a great innovation, and should be a regular part of any "toolbox" of solutions.

I think you might watch out, what any "mayor's" organization could become, after a few terms, and with the wrong mayor.

We in the Cynic's Party are not surprised.

It's all about restoring manufacturing and good jobs.  Keep it up Hillary!  Renewable energy re-volution will do it.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog