Speaking of confederacies of dunces . . .

I was pretty surprised to find still un-reviewed on WC and to find only one post back in 2003 discussing its core idea of "Contraction and Convergence" as the way to `solve' climate change. . .

"Economic growth is a tool for improving quality of life and well-being, but it is often forgotten that it was never meant to be an end in itself...any economic approach that endangers the future of the planet, as our current model is doing, is unacceptable no matter how much wealth is generated.'

Thus the principle of Contraction and Convergence. A limit must be agreed on how much CO2 can be allowed to exist within the atmosphere, and a timescale is calculated to reach this. Secondly, global convergence towards this date involves converging towards equal per capita shares of emissions. In his world, the only equitable way of limiting our emissions - and thus the only way Hillman sees as acceptable across developed and developing nations according to principles of social justice - is global, individual carbon rationing. While achieving this political consensus is difficult, Hillman views the role of the UK as key to this global advocacy, although C&C is now backed by a range of groups including most EU ministers, the Africa Group of Nations, and even some World Bank statements.

There was a flurry of mild interest in C&C a few years ago, but even the most cursory examination shows it to be a shoddy and simplistic idea.

. . . defining equity as convergence to equal per capita shares or rights by all the parties involved assumes that equal capabilities will result. This is the same error that paleo-economists make when they define poverty in terms of relative income rather than using capability analysis to determine what that income can provide for sustenance. For example, a Siberian will likely need more energy than a South Sea Islander for equivalent capability to survive and thrive. Location may matter as much as population for a truly logical basis of equity.

. . . the GCI model is a perverse incentive to overpopulate a region for financial gain. Individuals may not make this cynical decision, but their totalitarian governments almost certainly will. Conversely, sparsely populated nations are penalized for their parsimony.

Taken together these flaws seem to make the GCI model inequitable and likely to fail should it be implemented.

A nagging concern in this is that it may also fail to affect climate in any useful way. It will take 100 years for the excess CO2 now in the atmosphere to breakdown and during that time the effects will accumulate. Natural climate variation seems also to be heading toward increased warmth though the relative contributions of GHGs are not yet understood. If we do C&C and the poorer southern societies still submerge there will be trouble.

It seems that we need more realistic models. It is the standard modelers dilemma - models of low dimensionality fail to describe systems but the measurement and calculation needed for more dimensions exceeds present capabilities. And it seems we need to be more cautious about how we spend our limited resources, to avoid risky expenses and save some for a hot, rainy day.

Though the GCI model seems simple it may be merely simplistic. The measurement problems mentioned above for useful model building will be many times more difficult for operation. Measurement and accounting on even a corporate scale are daunting tasks and hopeless at the national level as existing national budgetary machinations demonstrate. On a global scale where there are no existing regulation or enforcement mechanisms it seems impossible. Every regulated substance spawns a criminal organization to smuggle and exploit the regulations. To expect humans to cooperate with the spirit of such a system is fantasy. Nice theory, wrong species (paraphrasing E.O. Wilson in another context).

The world probably won't end if C&C is adopted but it is highly doubtful that the 'film will be like the novel'. It seems to be a breathtakingly bold gamble that essentially tosses human civilization into the air just to see how it will land.

The lack of critical thinking in confederacies of dunces is their most important and obvious characteristic.

In this case the dunces begin with a bias against economic well being and merit. Economic growth that would enable the other 80% of the world's people to live well is objectionable to them in every case. Climate change is an excuse to oppose growth rather than a reason. The idea of individual humans choosing their relative standard of living by working harder, better, smarter or longer is something they seek to stamp out. Though status will simply be pursued and expressed in other ways - we are talking about humans - they have an oikophobic aversion to this particular way of seeking status. Egalitarianism is a silly notion that depends on a blinkered view of reality.

There is something especially insidious about these confederacies of dunces that advocate hype, hustle, grift and corruption. There may be innocents - useful idiots - that don't grasp the nature of these groups and so actually believe the surface claims, but that cannot be true of all of them. They are not that stupid. It is more a matter of choosing evil outcomes as instruments to achieve some larger objective. It's eggs and omelettes thinking, Robespierre thinking that accepts collateral damage as an unavoidable and even bracing necessity. Corruption and deception are required in their view since people would not freely choose to do the things they advocate, things that are held to be "for their own good". History is littered with the rotting gobbets of such nonsensical thinking.

Climate change will not be affected by all of the regulatory schemes on the planet. If we do in fact have a grasp of the physical principles - something that is exceedingly doubtful at this time but we continue to learn - then such proposals are far too little and far too late. It is gross irresponsibility to exploit our concerns about climate change to sneak in oppressive institutions that we have consistently rejected when openly presented in good faith. No. We don't want to live like that. It's an ugly world you advocate that we have every reason to think will grow monotonically uglier as the effects of those policies accumulate over time. Besides, they'll make climate change worse by breaking civilization, leaving our burgeoning billions to eke out a subsistence life with primitive methods that emit and pollute at higher levels. Contraction and convergence would result in massive death and destruction. I suspect that this is acceptable to these latter day Robespierres yearning for the great die-off. They don't like people.