To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Justin Podur's Blog » Climate Politics: An answer to Cockburn, Rancourt, Noble

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

72

Justin Podur's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/justinpodur
Bio: Justin Podur is a writer and editor for ZNet (www.zmag.org), part of Z Communications, an alternative media organization dedicated to political analysis and support for movements for social change.... (More)

All Podur Blogs

Recent Podur Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zvideo_icon ZStores

Climate Politics: An answer to Cockburn, Rancourt, Noble

By Justin Podur at May 10, 2007

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
I just published this answer to Cockburn, Rancourt, and Noble on ZNet. I hope it helps some people think about these things and sift the useful contributions from these writers from the very poor things they are doing in their writing on climate.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (6)

3866

SOL on GCC?

By Ward, Peter at Jun 17, 2007 04:47 AM
I think this debate rases a serious issue, one that is in fact much more problematic than Podur admits in his article; who should the public trust, in this case and in general? and how should we, the lay public, i.e., decide on matters where a high level of sceintific expertise is required for proper comprehension?

The fact is, when it comes to any matter that has any bearing on politics, people who are in an articulate position almost always have an interest in manipulating the public. I don't think that skepticism regarding HGCC is unjustified. 

In the long run good scientific trainning, the kind that encourages critical thinking and the formation of clear mental  images, needs to be integral to primary education. But in the case of deciding what to do on GCC we have to face that fact of a public that are very ignorant of, and in many cases hostile to, science. Belittling people for being wrong certainly will not help.

Personally, I think that for now, at any rate, it is wise to act on the proposals of the experts. I.e., on the assumption that global warming is due to human C02 emmissions. But it is crucial that we are very honest in our approach. This is a no-comprimise issue. If we buy into quack solutions, as many are currently doing, we are right to be ridiculed. The only realistic way to meet the targets set by Monbiot, e.g., requires (among other things) reducing transportation and production (which are fundemental to a our so-called capitalist econonmy) by a huge amount--"clean coal" and hybrid cars don't come anywhere close. Thus, we must also think seriously about these radical economic implications amd so far I don't see many prepared to do this, frankly. 

Reply this comment

Person

mitigation and adaptation?

By Kissenger, Clark at May 12, 2007 19:27 PM
Yes, well, most of the scientific and technical literature on the topic deals with both "mitigation" (trying to lower CO2 emissions and otherwise deal with CO2 problems) and "adaptation" (accepting that some change is going to happen and we should try to minimize its impacts on society and ecosystems). But if CO2 emissions play no role, as Cockburn/Rancourt and implicitly Noble argue, then we can emit all we want, which, if CO2 emissions do play a role, is socially and ecologically suicidal, even if attention is paid to adaptation. So, yes, the solutions are different if you think CO2 matters and if you don't. The solutions are also different within the group that think CO2 matters (my solutions or Monbiot's are very different from Gore's).

Reply this comment

Person

Is it possible that the problem is not 2 sided and neither is

By Russell, Mariam at May 12, 2007 15:31 PM

the answer?

If, as I have read, the entire solar system, all the planets, are warming up, and man is just adding to the problem, would our solutions need to be different?

If we try for solutions that deal with CO2, which will make millions for Mr. Gore´s hedge fund, and get railroaded into biofuels to make more millions for the 5% of the population who are in the driver´s seat, are we not ignoring the real problems of rising seas, storms, population displacement, etc, etc, that will happen whatever we do as at least part of the problem is a natural one?  

Reply this comment

Person

they'll use biofuels to ruin us

By Kissenger, Clark at May 11, 2007 17:41 PM
These greens will starve us all to death with their biofuels if we let them! They are a nightmare in Colombia and I am, unfortunately, unsurprised to hear they are a nightmare in Argentina as well. It seems this biofuels business is moving incredibly fast. All the more important to sort out the sensible positions from the nonsensical ones. Thanks Marie. And thanks terence as well, I agree that combining bad with good points has been one of our main problems historically!

Reply this comment

Person

Al Gore soy hungry

By Kissenger, Clark at May 11, 2007 14:29 PM
Hi Justin, I just read your piece, which is quite timely and informative. Thanks for writing it. Today, Al Gore is in Argentina for the First Biofuels Congress of the Americas. I haven't seen his film the Uncomfortable Truth in full, but when I found out about the film I was surprised. I asked myself, why would Al Gore be so critical about what the US economy and industry is doing to the environment? Well, I found out the answer: create hype and enough reasoning to sell biofuels to the American public and business sector so he can get rich with biofuels. Al Gore was paid 170,000 dollars to come and give a 40 minute presentation on the possibilities of biofuels. Soy-producer Julio Cesar Gutierrez footed the bill. Al Gore seems to be speculating around the biofuel industry, which is just as destructive as non-renewable energy. A study published by the National Academy of Sciences found that neither ethanol nor biodiesal can replace petroleum without having an impact on food supply. Who are those most hurt by renewable energy, farmers and indigenous. Renewable energy proponents hope that Argentina's soy production will fuel biodiesal for export. Argentina is the third-largest soybean producer in the world after the United States and Brazil. Top soil erosion and pollution caused from pesticides and fertilizers have been just some of the side effects to soy. p.d. the title of the comment isn't a parody of Al Gore's spanish, but that he is hungry for soy.

Marie Trigona

mtrigona@msn.com

http://mujereslibres.blogspot.com/

Reply this comment

Person

Noble has an important point though

By Kissenger, Clark at May 10, 2007 23:47 PM
Justin, thanks for this clarification. It was certainly needed. I think you're certainly right about Noble's dismissal of the science, but I do want to put in a good word about his insight that the new media focus on climate change is part of the general (and woefully effective) campaign to derail the global justice movement. Has anyone else made this point? I think it's a crucial one. I realize that by agreeing with Noble on one of his arguments, the soundbyte media that controls public opinion elides my disagreement on another of his arguments and thus pigeonholes me as a science ignoramus. It's the same old tactic that is always used to discredit the left--attach the real message to a piece of idiocy--a problem we've never solved. As always, that's the problem we must work on incessantly. T

Reply this comment

Loading_border