The Lifeboat News
[ Message Archive | The Lifeboat News ]

    Re: A funeral for a glacier; an elegy for a coal-fired power station. Archived Message

    Posted by John Monro on August 19, 2019, 10:44 pm, in reply to "A funeral for a glacier; an elegy for a coal-fired power station."

    John, a great post. Though the referral to the twitter account isn't that informative, better reading here:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/19/iceland-holds-funeral-for-first-glacier-lost-to-climate-change

    https://www.cbsnews.com/video/iceland-memorial-for-glacier/#x

    I've read about the first item, the glacier actually disappeared five years ago, but this is now being formally recognised by this bilingual plaque on the volcano, which I suppose will last until it next erupts. The glacier's extent 130 years ago was 16 sq kms.

    I don't read the Daily Mail, nor Peter Hitchens. I believe Peter Hitchins describes himself as a Burkian conservative? Is this correct, or is he rather more right wing than this? His argument of course is entirely fallacious in moral and logical terms, and is scientifically and economically ill informed.

    First, does he accept the science and increasing perils of global warming? He declines to answer this and frames his argument purely on a false comparison. I'm not sure what the formal name for his argument and fallacious reasoning is, but it's sort of an avoidance of responsibility for one's own actions because others are even worse than you. It's basically a moral copout.

    I hear it all the time from business and right wing politicians in NZ. Ah, we're just a small country, responsible for one ten trillionth of global warming, so why should we do anything? We'll be a "fast follower" (sic) which actually means we're now the worst performer in the whole OECD in increasing emissions from 1990.

    There's a good reply to Hitchens's argument Ewan Maclean. He points out that acceptance or not of global warming is the whole point of Hitchens's argument, and it's meaningless if global warming is not the issue. And if it is the issue, then the question should be "what is your own most prudent response to global warming". Perhaps showing some leadership might convince others to follow suit?

    The other way that Peter Hitchens fails in his article is in the facts around coal-fired generation which, disregarding global warming, might cause us to abandon it in any case. .

    1)Coal powered generation is now more expensive in producing power than renewable power options.
    2) Coal has to be imported, and so is a problem for a country with a large balance of payments deficits - sunshine and wind are free.
    3) Coal burning is dirty, it produces toxic byproducts which have to be disposed of, it heats local rivers, and its production is tainted with the same environmental problems.

    But what else can you expect from the Daily Mail? Or for that matter, the Telegraph? Or the Times? Or the Express? Or the Sun? I don't include the Guardian, because its environmental concerns and standard of reporting are much higher: its failure is in its politics and moral accountability.

    Message Thread: