Climate change talks in Paris our 'last chance', say Pacific islands

[Quetzal]

Despite the loss of jobs or what such actions would do to their economies? It seems to me relocation is cheaper. Certainly it is not what the islanders would want, but what of that which the industrialized countries want? How do we weigh these wants, how do we decide which course of action is right?

Certainly saving the islands is not the only way to save the people of the island.

What economy would they have left? There wouldn't be anything there. Deciding what would be the "right thing to do" would not be easy. I do not believe there is a silver bullet answer.

 

[Curious George]

What economy would they have left? There wouldn't be anything there. Deciding what would be the "right thing to do" would not be easy. I do not believe there is a silver bullet answer.

the economy of the islands? None. I am talking about the economy of the industrialized country compared with the existence of the islands.

 

[Quetzal]

the economy of the islands? None. I am talking about the economy of the industrialized country compared with the existence of the islands.

I think it would be a pretty selfish choice to choose profit margins over the existence of other countries and their people.

 

[Curious George]

I think it would be a pretty selfish choice to choose profit margins over the existence of other countries and their people.

Profit margins equal jobs, equal stability, equal less crime. I think it would be a pretty selfish choice to throw a whole country into distress in order to save the land that will likely be under the sea regardless of actions taken. Especially being that the low number of people can be relocated.

 

[Quetzal]

Profit margins equal jobs, equal stability, equal less crime. I think it would be a pretty selfish choice to throw a whole country into distress in order to save the land that will likely be under the sea regardless of actions taken. Especially being that the low number of people can be relocated.

You believe the profits of corporations are more important than environmental stability and the existence of nations that reap the consequences? What a terrible thing to say.

"Hey, we could help you, we really could. But look at this graph here... if we take actions to help you, we will suffer a 10% loss and we just can't have that. Our stock holders would not be happy and, frankly, you aren't worth it. Cheers!"

 

[columbus]

I did get a chuckle about the idea of worrying about people who live 3 feet above sea level. What could possibly go wrong?

Apres nous, le deluge. ?

What if the destruction goes far beyond a few islands? What if it starts seriously impinging on the wealthy?

Are you guys going to take responsibility for the problems?
Tom

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Despite the loss of jobs or what such actions would do to their economies? It seems to me relocation is cheaper. Certainly it is not what the islanders would want, but what of that which the industrialized countries want? How do we weigh these wants, how do we decide which course of action is right?

Certainly saving the islands is not the only way to save the people of the island.

If our actions are causing them to have to relocate, our actions are the ones that must be changed as we are causing harm to another. If we make them relocate, rather than change our ways, we are literally saying that we value our ways above their ways, and that we do not care if our ways have a detrimental effect on their lives.

 

[Curious George]

You believe the profits of corporations are more important than environmental stability and the existence of nations that reap the consequences? What a terrible thing to say.

"Hey, we could help you, we really could. But look at this graph here... if we take actions to help you, we will suffer a 10% loss and we just can't have that. Our stock holders would not be happy and, frankly, you aren't worth it. Cheers!"

Hmm, seems you just built a straw man. Are you having fun playing with him.

Now the crux of my actual argument requires you to show what actions need to be taken and how those actions will adversely effect the population of the industrialized country who is supposed to take said action. Your argument, that they should do WHATEVER necessary to save the islands would however include extreme examples, such as increase unemployment to 50%.

My point is that there must be a balancing equation. It may be easy to see the consequences of environmental damage for you, however maintain that national economies are also sensitive systems that have far reaching effects when out of sync. Your flaw comes from the assumption the only cost is going to be a 10% loss to a few companies.

 

[Curious George]

If our actions are causing them to have to relocate, our actions are the ones that must be changed as we are causing harm to another. If we make them relocate, rather than change our ways, we are literally saying that we value our ways above their ways, and that we do not care if our ways have a detrimental effect on their lives.

I think you have read the lorax one too many times.

You are talking about a system with myriad interactions and no clear party at fault. There is no proximate cause between any single action and our current state of affairs. Moreover, we have at best only accelerated a process which was inevitable. The concern is global, not just fixxed on these islands. Any focus should be on how the world is going to move forward with the least negative consequences, and if that means we lose a couple islands in the process this is not saying that we value our way over their way, but that we value humankind over any subgroup.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think you have read the lorax one too many times.

No, but I have read Kant and Mill. And it just isn't islands. All life is being effected in one way or another; pollution; deforestation; depleting and contaminated resources; extinction. Our ways are so bad for the planet and all life that even without global warming there is no valid or logical reason to carry on as we are.

 

[Curious George]

No, but I have read Kant and Mill. And it just isn't islands. All life is being effected in one way or another; pollution; deforestation; depleting and contaminated resources; extinction. Our ways are so bad for the planet and all life that even without global warming there is no valid or logical reason to carry on as we are.

You have presented a false dichotomy. Something that Kant would not have done. The choice is not between do nothing or save the islands.

The discussion is about what measures should be takeni n order to preserve the islands. If you are suggesting that saving the islands by any means necessary is the right thing to do, you are wrong. It is as simple as that.

 

[Quetzal]

Hmm, seems you just built a straw man. Are you having fun playing with him.

Now the crux of my actual argument requires you to show what actions need to be taken and how those actions will adversely effect the population of the industrialized country who is supposed to take said action. Your argument, that they should do WHATEVER necessary to save the islands would however include extreme examples, such as increase unemployment to 50%.

My point is that there must be a balancing equation. It may be easy to see the consequences of environmental damage for you, however maintain that national economies are also sensitive systems that have far reaching effects when out of sync. Your flaw comes from the assumption the only cost is going to be a 10% loss to a few companies.

Of course it is a balancing equation. I said there is no silver bullet and that there would need to be multiple theories involved. What about that was so hard for you to understand?

 

[Quetzal]

You have presented a false dichotomy. Something that Kant would not have done. The choice is not between do nothing or save the islands.

The discussion is about what measures should be takeni n order to preserve the islands. If you are suggesting that saving the islands by any means necessary is the right thing to do, you are wrong. It is as simple as that.

Actually, many politicians involved would rather do just that: do nothing. Maybe instead of hanging out fallacy penalty cards, you can at least pretend that there are some people who are taking up that position.

 

[BSM1]

Are these problems outlined by NASA also a hoax?

Still conjecture. Proves nothing. Spin again.

 

[Quetzal]

Still conjecture. Proves nothing. Spin again.

Let's approach this from another way, what would it take for you to consider that climate change is real?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The discussion is about what measures should be takeni n order to preserve the islands. If you are suggesting that saving the islands by any means necessary is the right thing to do, you are wrong. It is as simple as that.

Because you apparently missed it, I said there is far more at stake than just the islands.

 

[Curious George]

Of course it is a balancing equation. I said there is no silver bullet and that there would need to be multiple theories involved. What about that was so hard for you to understand?

Perhaps the part where you implied that people would just be worried about a 10% profit margin loss and nothing else.

 

[Quetzal]

Perhaps the part where you implied that people would just be worried about a 10% profit margin loss and nothing else.

It wasn't designed to elude to a concrete claim, but to highlight how absurd your "profits are more important" argument sounds to me.

 

[Curious George]

Actually, many politicians involved would rather do just that: do nothing. Maybe instead of hanging out fallacy penalty cards, you can at least pretend that there are some people who are taking up that position.

That some deny it still is true. Hence why I originally apologized. If you created a thread to debate with this group carry on. There are plenty that will have that conversation, I am sure. But if you created this thread to discuss the more nuanced point about what is right here, then my words stand. And my position is just as valid whether others hold it or not.

 

[Curious George]

It wasn't designed to elude to a concrete claim, but to highlight how absurd your "profits are more important" argument sounds to me.

Because you naively think that the profits are the only consequences. If you live from paycheck to paycheck, and I take 10% of your money, the only consequence is not you losing money, their is bounced checks, sacrifices and plenty of other hurdles. On a national scale there are even more consequences. There are secondary and tertiary consequences. All sorts of problems can occur when one unnaturally forces action. Not thinking these through is the hallmark of bad decision making.