Skip to main content

Bloomberg Surveillance

I was watching a little Bloomberg this morning. An interesting moment occurred when Tom Keene was discussing the talks going on in Paris. I wish I had the exact phrasing, but he said something like, “We really need to wait until we see the impacts [of climate change] before we can try to prevent them.” His tone sort of trailed off at the end as if the contradiction of that statement occurred to him mid-sentence. His point was, I believe, that it would be irresponsible to spend big money trying to prevent something that might not happen. They then moved on to the massive smog alert going on in Beijing and how the health impacts of burning coal have brought the Chinese government to the table sooner than anyone had imagined possible. Unfortunately, he and his fellow commentators failed to put these two ideas together: 
  1. If we wait until we see the impacts, it will be too late to avoid them. When inaction risks many lives, the only prudent thing to do is act now.*
  2. There are short and medium term health benefits to climate mitigation strategies that offset some or all of the cost of acting now.

The key is thinking beyond the next business cycle & in the interest of the whole public, two things our political leaders actually did (sometimes) before their careers centered on lobbyists and fundraising.


*Fun fact; this is essentially the same rationale Dick Cheney used to justify the Global War on Terror. In their case, the real chances were far lower than 1%. For us, they are far greater.

Comments

  1. A consensus on the financial impacts is starting to form. Based on the modest (at best) successes at COP21, I think you can count that $1.7 Trillion as gone.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-investment-idUSKCN0X11LY

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Value of Pop Economics?

A friend recently posted a meme about rising income inequality to Facebook. One of the comments was a link to a piece from Economics Explained with the provocative title " How The Dutch Economy Shows We Can't Reduce Wealth Inequality With Taxes " I'm starting to see a pattern in these sorts of economics articles: 1. Make a pointed and contrarian claim about the power of economics to address a major issue in contemporary society (taxes won't fix inequality). 2. Compare related economics concepts that have much narrower definitions than the ones that drew in the reader (GINI vs income & wealth inequality vs a few specific aspects of Dutch taxes and culture). 3. Add some artfully selected facts to keep people interested (Heineken family info). 4. Also artfully avoid saying explicitly that the narrow comparison proves or disproves anything specific about the broader societal problem. 5. Make a generally agreeable statement about the world: Inequality doesn't ...

Operational Tension

When it comes to how we do our jobs, where do architects find inspiration? It seems to me there are three perspectives: Sui Generis - Treats architecture as a unique field, looking to other architects Creative Orientation - Lessons can be found in other creative fields Business Orientation - Seeks to apply general management principals The limitations of the sui generis approach are self-evident (that is, I don't want to look for references at this moment). By focusing only on the practices of other architects, our ability to adapt and innovate relies on other architects to experiment and disseminate that information. How consistently do the major trade publications look at these issues? I suspect not often. I also suspect readership of more specialized publications is thin within the architectural community. This approach has the self-serving appeal of defining our work as special and by extension, we are special. Maybe architects aren't more prone to that sort of status...

A Golden Failure

It's 2020, and unless things really truly go to literal hell, everyone will recognize what that means for a long time. I've been trying to find a way of tying these many struggles together, COVID-19, racism, violence, climate change. I wish I could remember where this idea came from, because it isn't mine. The Golden Rule, to do unto others as they would have them do unto you, isn't enough. Not by itself. It lets us rest on a sense that we can get by being polite, that we can rely on reacting to circumstances as we encounter them in a positive way. These challenges stem from an entire society's dysfunctions. An LED lightbulb and a meme or two isn't remotely enough. I understand this to be the core belief of the progressive movement: what we want for ourselves, we must work to provide for others, for everyone else. Every decision about our collective welfare has to start there.  Choosing not to is the core of bigotry, of environmental destruction, the genesis of ...