Wednesday, December 23, 2009

John Humphreys, and whinging about the whiners, and talking up direct action as a way of avoiding it ...


We used to have a teacher who said on a regular basis ' don't do as I do, do as I say'.

It was usually in relation to smoking and alcohol, but he could on a whim extend it to any convenient issue to hand. What an insolent offensive bastard he was, even if he was usually right.

It turns out that if you google the phrase, you can get 189m. results, proving that dumb fuck teacher sayings are widespread in the looniverse.

And it seems John Humphreys has drunk the same kind of philosophical kool aid as part of his silly season celebrations, in Activists should stop talking about global warming and start acting.

You see, it seems global warming is an issue, and direct action should be taken:

Concern about anthropogenic global warming is appropriate. The Earth did warm up in the late 20th century, and the United Nations thinks greenhouse gas emissions are probably a major cause. Understandably, many people want to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Well that sounds serious, and it turns out that Humphreys is a research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies. So what have the CIS, and Humphreys done in the way of direct action to tackle this extremely dangerous issue? How have they put it front and centre on the agenda, and taken diligent action to solve the many issues involved?

Well if head off the the front page, here, it would seem bugger all, or diddly squat.

And Humphreys' brave personal stand on the matter? Why it's to whinge about how other people are whinging and doing nothing.

If climate activists had spent the past 10 years acting instead of wasting time at talkfests such as the one at Copenhagen, we would already have a price signal on greenhouse gas emissions.

It is an indication of the sorry state of community groups that when faced with a problem, they spend millions of dollars whinging and asking other people to do something. This is especially true when it comes to climate campaigners. While this group of young ideologues revel in their self-appointed moral superiority, they have so far achieved very little.


Let's re-phrase that:

If the CIS and its ideological activists had spent the past 10 years acting instead of wasting time scribbling research tomes and attending talkfests throughout the land, we would already have a price signal on greenhouse gas emissions.

It is an indication of the sorry state of the CIS that when faced with a problem, they spend millions of dollars whinging about leftists and community groups, and asking other people to do something. This is especially true when it comes to campaigning about the climate. While this group of right wing think tank ideologues revel in their self-appointed moral superiority, they have so far achieved very little.


We could go on and on in like vein, since it's always easy to spot a gherkin hiding amongst the lettuce leaves, and Humphreys compounds the desire to go ad hominem by carrying on like a prize gherkin about what others should do and how everything is the fault of others:

Instead of whinging and waiting for politicians to become benevolent, people who are worried about anthropogenic global warming can take immediate action.

People who are worried? Presumably that includes Humphreys and by extension the CIS? Are they a community group who should be taking immediate action? Okay, how?

To be fair, some groups offer people the opportunity to offset emissions by planting trees or capturing methane from landfill. But the only long-term fix is better technology, and so community groups should be looking at ways to encourage investment in alternative energy technology.

Effective action requires money. Green groups raise funds, but these are often wasted on political lobbying rather than direct action, and so community involvement is replaced by rent-seeking. To engage the community, climate activists should offer the chance to contribute to a climate-change fighting fund which would be dedicated to action and not politics.

Oh I can't resist. How about we do a little re-write of that last par?

Effective action requires money. Dumbo right wing think tanks raise funds, but these are often wasted on political lobbying rather than direct action, and so community involvement is replaced by rent-seeking. To engage the community, dumbo right wing think tanks should offer the chance to contribute to a climate-change fighting fund which would be dedicated to action and not politics.

Why and here's the very way that might be made to happen:

It is easy to imagine entire workplaces getting together and jointly agreeing to join the scheme. Businesses would also be keen to contribute to show their green credentials, and rich philanthropists would add to the fund. Dumbo right wing think tank groups already raise millions of dollars every year; they could contribute some of that to the climate fund instead of political lobbying. Instead of flying around Australia to report on failure, keen activists could arrange fund-raising to contribute. Political whinging is popular these days, but civil society has always been more effective.

Oh steady on, old chum, you mean to say the CIS couldn't indulge in political whinging, its chief and most popular form of self-entertainment? Not liking the sound of that, suddenly all that talk of direct action seems the sort of thing we should perhaps urge on green and community groups. Other people.

But Humphreys can't resist a clarion call to arms:

As the fighting fund would be entirely voluntary, there is no need for lobbying, legislation or international agreements. We could start immediately. We could have started 10 years ago.

Uh huh, standing by Mr. Humphreys, ready, armed and waiting ... for your lead and the heroic leadership of the CIS as a sterling example to the community. True, you could have started ten years ago, but better late than never.

The Government cannot solve all our problems. Indeed, government action has a track record of making bad situations worse. In contrast, a voluntary climate fighting fund can be started immediately without a drawn-out political fight, without all the political compromises, and without the costs associated with government policy. If the Government then later wants to add to the scheme, it could offer matching funding. But a voluntary fund doesn't need to wait for government help or approval. All it needs is a group of climate activists who want to act instead of just talk.

Uh huh, act instead of talk. We're back to the them who'll do the dirty deed, rather than the us in the community. All it needs is a group of climate activists who want to act instead of just talk.

Act instead of just talk? Well surely the CIS and John Humphreys can lead the charge, as a nifty salve to their blathering consciences, instead of blaming others for not acting ...

What's that you say? What's loon pond doing in the way of direct action? Well don't look at us, we're soon off on holiday to sunny Melbourne. We much prefer to be like the CIS and John Humphreys and blather on about others blathering on about others blathering on, instead of taking direct action ... You see, it's the fault of others, nothing to do with us.

What a honker.

Oops, I was recently chivvied for insulting geese, and rightly so, since geese honk for a purpose (sex, alarms, feeding calls, territorial rights, maintaining good flying formations, helping lost geese contact base), but surely it's not too late for a 'gherkin of the year' award, and surely Humphreys is a prime contender.

Some might think the gherkin is an innocent fruit, similar in form and nutritional value to a cucumber (here), but I think it perfectly captures the spirit of someone who blathers on about other people blathering on, and talks about activisits who want to act instead of talk, in a way that suggests the author will be quite content talking rather than acting.

That irritating teacher we used to suffer under had a number of other wise saws, including 'physician, heal thyself', and 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw igneous rocks' and 'hot air is mainly useful for the launching of balloons'.

He was a deviant, insufferable bastard, but you know, I reckon he might have been right ...

(Below: screen cap of 'about the CIS' - you can find it live here. Strange, no mention of community activism, a workplace climate change fund, or a drive to transform the community through direct action rather than blather, talk fests, and ideologically driven humbuggery).

(Below: a gherkin think tank).

9 comments:

  1. I haven't done anything because I don't think climate change is a high priority. Instead, I set up an NGO arranging alternative finance for poor students in Cambodia to go to university. For me, that is a higher priority.

    But for others (especially the loud climate activists) it seems that they think climate is a higher priority, and so it is up to them to put up or shut up. There are many green groups out there that already have the institutional set-up to start arranging community action. But unfortunately, their action all seems to be aimed at lobbying and rent-seeking.

    If you think there are other more important problems out there (and there are many good causes to choose from) then I expect you would put your time and effort into those. That's the joy of voluntary community and civil society.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @ John Humphreys

    Why don't you just admit you wanted to take a cheap easy shot at the greenies and such like?

    As if choice and voluntary community and civil society is going to sort out China and India. Especially if your choice is to do nothing. So we all choose to do nothing?

    Talk about mealy mouthed lobbying and rent seeking.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steady Dot, I don't think you understand fighting global warming is like hobby farming, or going to the scouts, or doing good deeds for the day. You know change a light bulb so that the coal fired power stations can keep on doing their thing.

    Climate isn't a high priority? Well if you believe it's real, it should be, and if you think it isn't, why not join the boy scouts or some other worthy cause. Like the girl guides. Maybe a lemonade stand and a cookie selling drive could save the planet ...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry I forgot how well the Great sparrow campaign worked in China.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_sparrow_campaign

    Will do better and strive to rid the world of the four pests.

    ReplyDelete
  5. dorothy -- our voluntary or government actions aren't going to sort out China or India. I never said nor implied it would.

    The only way to sustainably reduce greenhouse gas emissions is by technological development. The community suggestion I made would increase the incentive to invest in alternative energy technology.

    I haven't asked for anything, nor have I advocated a government policy -- so my article was not "rent-seeking" or "lobbying". You seem to be confused about what those words mean.

    rocky -- I'm sorry that you're so contemptuous of civil society and voluntary community. I think you'll find the track record of community is generally better than the track record of government, which you seem to trust so much. Community groups not only are able to more quickly and flexibly respond to problems, but they also build social capital and social cohesion.

    I think AGW is real, but I think many people (who often haven't done much research on the issue) over-estimate the negative consequences. The IPCC suggest 2-4 degrees warming, and the peer-reviewed studies of the consequences of 3 degrees warming show a negative impact equal to about -1% of GDP in about 100 years. That's not a good thing, but I think absolute poverty in the third world is a higher priority.

    But as I said, that's a personal judgement. You are free to have a different set of priorities and donate your money accordingly. Or just whinge, if you think that will be effective.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Where I come from advocating that government stay out of a field because they're hopeless at it, is in fact advocating a course of action for government. Or lobbying. You seem to be confused about what words mean.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You come from a strange place. If I ask you to donate to my NGO in Cambodia, do you think that too is lobbying and advocating government policy?

    ReplyDelete
  8. If you think a dictionary is a strange place:

    http://www.dictionary.net/lobby]

    Inter alia:

    To address or solicit members of a legislative body in the lobby or elsewhere, with the purpose to influence their votes; in an extended sense, to try to influence decision-makers in any circumstance. [U.S.]

    2: a group of people who try actively to influence legislation [syn: pressure group, third house] v : detain in conversation by or as if by holding on to the outer garments of; as for political or economic favors [syn: buttonhole] [also: lobbied]

    But feel free to maintain the Humpty Dumpty school of argument, because I too pay words lavishly and believe they should mean what I expect them to mean. Impenetrable.

    And yes if you buttonhole me for money, inside or outside the lobby, I'll take that as a lobby. Or put it another way, if you expect government to get out of the health business, or climate change, while at the same proposing work place deductions be allowed in the manner of trade unions, I'll take that as lobbying too. Along with tithing green groups to contribute to a climate fighting fund, run by private sector bureaucrats aping the government. As if pie in the sky voluntarism, in imitation of the American system is the way to go ... unless of course you believe in tipping as well as private sector rent seeking, as in the way of property rent and interest as a charge for the renting of capital.

    ReplyDelete
  9. dorothy -- you seem like an angry and hate-filled person. Calm down. Relax. Smile. It's Christmas.

    I think all honest readers know the difference between lobbying for government largese and calling for community action. But if you think these are the same things, then that's fine with me. In that case, please take as read that whenever I write "lobbying" I am talking about "lobbying for government action". I hope that clears up that irrelevant semantic side-track for you.

    I'm sorry you hate the community sector so much. Perhaps that explains why you are so angry.

    Peace. :)

    ReplyDelete

Comments older than two days are moderated and there will be a delay in publishing them.