| | |
|
DevinMcDougallSecondPaper 16 - 24 May 2010 - Main.DevinMcDougall
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
Climate Change and the Importance of Creeds-End Fit
 | | | 1) I had trouble following your argument the first time around. Your transitions, both paragraph-to-paragraph and sentence-to-sentence, are choppy, so the argument meanders rather than flows naturally from one point to the next. | |
<
< | [Please feel free to edit any spots that scream out to you on this front] | >
> |
[Any specific suggestions on this front?]
| | | 2) Again, the lens of your analysis is squarely on the movement itself, but I really question if that's where it should be. I feel like the argument speaks more to the problem of coordinating policy change in countries where accepted policy rationales differ. In other words, isn't it just the rhetoric of policy reform that differs country to country rather than the motives of the movement as a whole? I thought the overall goal of the movement was "save the planet"--not "we're running out of coal/oil/whatever." | |
>
> | | | | [My overall argument is that for the movement in the US to sustain itself and make progress on the issue, the justice frame is important - so it is about the planet, not about dwindling coal, or peak oil, etc. I don't really see justice and incentives as interchangeable rationales for identical policies. I think they're almost different worldviews that lead to different policies and differing levels of commitment to achieve those policies against fierce opposition.] | |
>
> | | | | 3) Also consider that the timeline on which capitalism approaches problems is necessarily shorter than that of other organizing principles. Because America and many other countries are capitalist, doesn’t that mean that the public will (and by extension, power) in those countries can only be swayed by arguments that discuss problems in terms of their short-term consequences? In that case, perhaps the only way of passing needed regulations at all is by coaching policy rationale in short-term incentives. If it’s this or nothing, won't changing it work against the larger goal? Ultimately, I find the argument unpersuasive because I assume that environmental initiatives won't be ratified AT ALL unless we appeal to short-term incentives. I guess I don't see why we'd be better off trying to get capitalism to recognize a kind of logic that doesn't speak to what capitalism wants. | |
>
> | | | | [The question of capitalism is a big one. It may be that this ordering principle is inherently antithetical to dealing with long-term externalities problems like climate change. However, I think it's not necessarily incompatible.
The argument from political pragmatism does have appeal. The old saying is that half a loaf is better than no loaf. The problem I am raising with it here is that with this issue, the quarter of a loaf we can get from an incentives creed tailored for maximum political appeal will literally do nothing to solve the problem. It is as bad as no loaf, and worse, because it wastes energy (no pun intended) that could be spent on the kinds of things that might actually be helpful, though they are unlikely.] | |
>
> | | | | Leakage is a hole in the strategy, but does it utterly cause you lose the war? Why can't we have the same policy objectives and just tailor the rationale to what will appeal to the largest political base country to country? Is there still a coordination problem that way? I feel like countries inevitably adopt environmental policy at different rates, so you can't get away from leakage--you're left just dealing with it the best you can. That becomes Phase 2, if you will. | |
>
> | | | | [Leakage will cause the loss of this war. There's not time for Phase 2. Also there's a prisoner's dilemma - no one wants to be the first to act because everyone's afraid of everyone else free riding and everyone knows that unless everyone acts soon there is no point to anyone acting.] | |
>
> | | | | Still, I think the strategy/coordination/creed issue has broad implications for other global initiatives. I look forward to see how you develop it further. | |
>
> | | | | [If you want to take a crack at rewrite, for clarity and structure (don't do any research, obviously), I'd be interested to see what you do.] | |
>
> | | | | Shawn
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |