Discussion about this post

User's avatar
D Balakrishnan's avatar

How about greed enabled by materialism and markets under the respectable label of aspirational contributing to climate change.

A bitter irony that the ill effects of climate change are for public consumption while the major causes for it belong to the privileged few. More the power more the pollution.

Everything thus points to a moral problem.

Expand full comment
aldomat's avatar

Dear Pallavy,

you do ask for impossible comments ))-))

Methane is short-lived but can create a sudden climate reset (Drias-Event - Europe froze for 800 years). At present, this reset could happen as early as 2025. 60% of methane emissions are linked to rice fields in China. No go to ask them to stop, or plant mangroves.

Natural gas producers are the best short-term solution. Here, you must differentiate between state companies like Petronas, who are a law unto themselves, and wildcatters.

The practical issue masks the ethical issue: NZ is exporting water to the ME through milk powder and lamb meat. Where to apply the rule: with the producer (few) or the users (many?)

You have the same discussion with ethical rules for access to river water. If you use the "riparian" rule, whoever borders on the river, can pump and resell (e.g. Imperial Valley US). If you use the river basin "proportionality" rule, every year quotas must devised - often impractical because of flow variability from year to year (e.g. Sacramento Valley US).

Finally, any rule must be backed by power. Collective or oligarchic rule? This year's Nobel Prize insights - Ms Goldin - are cogent.

Have a happy consideration day.

aldo

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts