Energy Poverty Is Much Worse for the Poor Than Climate Change - promovare-site.info
decision makers to take action to curb climate change, which is becoming a global disaster and . been active in the movement, told how its original aim of access to land and agrarian . There is undeniable evidence that the earth— wildlife, water, land and . influence, relationships with others and in our local churches. First, issues of Global Change versus Global Warming are discussed. .. History provides clear evidence that a warm wet world is optimal for humans. and intensity, over time, ENSO Events often create the dilemma of defining real Climate The key to understanding and relating the relationships between these . Global warming on trial: Global warming goes on trial at am this is about equal to the original mid-range prediction of 21st-century global warming .. The problem, as I see it is, that whilst your evidence is % correct, it may in the climate system, then a temperature subsisting in that system will.
Given this universal growth dynamic, the Breakthrough writers call for prioritizing energy development for productive, large-scale economic enterprises. Copious and reliable energy will accelerate the creation and spread of higher-productivity factories and businesses, which then will generate the opportunities for a better life; that, in turn, will draw poor subsistence farmers into cities.
They further note that energy access and electricity access are not the same thing. In fact, in electricity accounted for only about 18 percent of the energy consumed globally. But what about climate change? Current renewable sources of energy are not technologically capable of lifting hundreds of millions of people out of energy poverty.
Consequently, the Breakthrough writers see "no practical path to universal access to modern levels of energy consumption" that keeps the projected increase in global average temperature below the Paris Agreement on climate change goal of 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. This implies that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide will exceed parts per million.
The causal condition is on the right track, but is arguably too restrictive. For example, it rules out analogical arguments in mathematics.
There was a problem providing the content you requested
Even if we limit attention to the empirical sciences, persuasive analogical arguments may be founded upon strong statistical correlation in the absence of any known causal connection.
Electrical fluid agrees with lightning in these particulars: Colour of the light. Being conducted by metals. Crack or noise in exploding. Subsisting in water or ice. Rending bodies it passes through. Let the experiment be made. Benjamin Franklin's Experiments, Franklin's hypothesis was based on a long list of properties common to the target lightning and source electrical fluid in the laboratory.
Analogical arguments may be plausible even where there are no known causal relations. Once it was discovered that heat was not conserved, however, the analogy became unacceptable according to Hesse because conservation was so central to the theory of fluid flow.
This requirement, though once again on the right track, seems too restrictive. It can lead to the rejection of a good analogical argument.
Consider the analogy between a two-dimensional rectangle and a three-dimensional box Example 7. This does not mean that we should reject every analogy between rectangles and boxes out of hand. The problem derives from the fact that Hesse's condition is applied to the analogy relation independently of the use to which that relation is put.
What counts as essential should vary with the analogical argument. The causal condition and the no-essential-difference condition incorporate local factors, as urged by Norton, into the assessment of analogical arguments. These conditions, singly or taken together, imply that an analogical argument can fail to generate any support for its conclusion, even when there is a non-empty positive analogy.
They propose formal criteria for evaluating analogies, based on overall structural or syntactical similarity. Let us refer to theories oriented around such criteria as structuralist. A number of leading computational models of analogy are structuralist. They are implemented in computer programs that begin with or sometimes build representations of the source and target domains, and then construct possible analogy mappings.
First, the goodness of an analogical argument is based on the goodness of the associated analogy mapping. Second, the goodness of the analogy mapping is given by a metric that indicates how closely it approximates isomorphism. The most influential structuralist theory has been Gentner's structure-mapping theory, implemented in a program called the structure-mapping engine SME. In its original form Gentnerthe theory assesses analogies on purely structural grounds.
Analogies are about relations, rather than simple features. No matter what kind of knowledge causal models, plans, stories, etc. She further distinguishes among different orders of relations and functions, defined inductively. Consider the sentence, Gravitational attraction between the sun and a planet, and the fact that the mass of the sun is much greater than that of the planet, causes the planet to orbit the sun. Gentner represents this in the following form: An analogy mapping M is a one-to-one function from the items in the source domain to those in the target, such that if R holds of objects a1, …, an in the source domain, then M R holds of objects R a1…, R an in the target.
The order of M R must be the same as the order of R. M may be a partial mapping; not every item in the source domain needs to have a target image. The best mapping M is determined by systematicity: Properties and functions are unimportant, unless they are part of a relational network. Gentner's Systematicity Principle states: A predicate that belongs to a mappable system of mutually interconnecting relationships is more likely to be imported into the target than is an isolated predicate.
And a systematic analogy one that places high-order relations and their components in correspondence is better than a less systematic analogy.
Hence, an analogical inference has a degree of plausibility that increases monotonically with the degree of systematicity of the associated analogy mapping. Gentner's fundamental criterion for evaluating candidate analogies and analogical inferences thus depends solely upon the syntax of the given representations and not at all upon their content.
The contrast with Hesse's approach is striking. Still, some of the fundamental difficulties with the structure-mapping approach are easiest to appreciate if we focus on the early version.
There is an obvious worry about hand-coded representations of source and target domains. Supposing suitable representations of the two domains, does the value of an analogy derive entirely, or even chiefly, from systematicity?
There appear to be two main difficulties with this view. The idea is to compare the artifacts in the archaeological record to similar items in existing cultures. The strength of these analogies is based, to a considerable degree, on surface resemblances between the two artifacts, regardless of whether these resemblances are known to participate in elaborate relational networks.
Second and more significantly: Greater systematicity is neither necessary nor sufficient for a more plausible analogical inference. It is obvious that increased systematicity is not sufficient for increased plausibility.
An implausible analogy can be represented in a form that exhibits a high degree of structural parallelism. More pointedly, increased systematicity is not necessary for greater plausibility. Indeed, in causal analogies, it may even weaken the inference. That is because systematicity takes no account of the direction of causal relevance. Reducing high-level similarity may contribute to the plausibility of an analogy if what is eliminated is a preventive cause.
To illustrate, consider an updated version of Example 2Reid's argument that life exists or has existed on Mars. In this recent version McKaythe source domains are frozen lakes in Antarctica or glaciers in Greenland.
In these lakes, microbes have been found to thrive despite the cold; by analogy, simple life forms might exist on Mars. Freezing temperatures are preventive or counteracting causes. They are negatively relevant to the existence of life. The climate of Mars was probably more favorable to life 3.
Yet the analogy between Antarctica and present-day Mars is more systematic than the analogy between Antarctica and ancient Mars. According to the Systematicity Principle, the analogy with Antarctica should provide stronger support for life on Mars today than it does for life on ancient Mars. The point of the example should be clear. Increased systematicity does not always increase plausibility; reduced systematicity does not always decrease it.
The elimination of systematic analogy can contribute to plausibility when what is eliminated is a counteracting cause see Lee and Holyoak The more general point is that systematicity can be misleading, unless we take into account the nature of the relationships between various factors and the hypothetical analogy.
This problem applies to any theory that equates structural isomorphism with plausibility. But systematicity does not magically produce or explain the plausibility of an analogical argument.
When we reason by analogy, we must determine which features of both domains are relevant and how they relate to the analogical conclusion. There is no short-cut via syntax.
Schlimm offers an entirely different critique of the structure-mapping theory from the perspective of analogical reasoning in mathematics—a domain where one might expect a formal approach such as structure mapping to perform well. Schlimm introduces a simple distinction: Proponents of the structure-mapping theory typically focus on relation-rich examples such as the analogy between the solar system and the atom.
By contrast, analogies in mathematics typically involve domains with an enormous number of objects like the real numbersbut relatively few relations addition, multiplication, less-than.
Schlimm provides an example of an analogical reasoning problem in group theory that involves a single relation in each domain. In this case, attaining maximal systematicity is trivial.
The difficulty is that, compatible with maximal systematicity, there are different ways in which the objects might be placed in correspondence.
Analogy and Analogical Reasoning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The structure-mapping theory appears to yield the wrong inference. We might put the general point as follows: Gentner's SME is just one of many computational theories, implemented in programs that construct and use analogies.
Three helpful anthologies that span this period are Helman ; Gentner, Holyoak, and Kokinov ; and Kokinov, Holyoak, and Gentner The predominant objective of this research has been to model the cognitive processes involved in using analogies.
Recent connectionist models have been directed towards uncovering the psychological mechanisms that come into play when we use analogies: In other cases, we might view the projects as displacing those traditional normative questions with up-to-date, computational forms of naturalized epistemology. Two approaches are singled out here because both raise important challenges to the very idea of finding sharp answers to those questions, and both suggest that connectionist models offer a more fruitful approach to understanding analogical reasoning.
The first is the constraint-satisfaction model also known as the multiconstraint theorydeveloped by Holyoak and Thagard Like Gentner, Holyoak and Thagard regard the heart of analogical reasoning as analogy mapping, and they stress the importance of systematicity, which they refer to as a structural constraint.
Unlike Gentner, they acknowledge two additional types of constraints. The theory is implemented in a connectionist program called ACME Analogical Constraint Mapping Enginewhich assigns an initial activation value to each possible pairing between elements in the source and target domains based on semantic and pragmatic constraintsand then runs through cycles that update the activation values based on overall coherence structural constraints.
The best global analogy mapping emerges under the pressure of these constraints. As a psychological account of how humans construct analogies, the constraint-satisfaction model is attractive. The introduction of semantic and pragmatic criteria allows the program to account for factors that genuinely influence the persuasiveness of analogies. The cyclical updating structure reflects our tendency to revise ideas about the correspondences in an analogy. Not surprisingly, it is difficult to view ACME as a traditional normative theory of analogical reasoning.
One concern is that there appears to be no way to extract any specific norms of analogical reasoning from the algorithms and coding conventions.
There is also a second concern about performance: But computational models are meant to challenge traditional epistemological objectives. Efforts to develop a quasi-logical theory of analogical reasoning, it might be argued, have failed. It is worth noting that subsequent computational models, such as Hummel and Holyoak's LISA program, have made significant advances and hold promise for offering a more complete theory of analogical reasoning.
Before responding to this argument, we describe a similar challenge raised by a very different computer program: Hofstadter and Mitchell's Copycat Hofstadter ; Mitchell Copycat operates in the domain of letter-strings. The program handles the following type of problem: Alternative answers are possible, corresponding to different rules: But these alternatives do not agree with most people's sense of what counts as the natural analogy. Nevertheless, orderly structures do emerge and the program produces plausible solutions.
In the authors' view, this emergence of order out of random low-level processes is the essence of perception.
Analogy and Analogical Reasoning
Copycat shows that analogy-making can be modeled as a process akin to perception, even if the program employs mechanisms distinct from those in human perception. That is a significant achievement.
The multiconstraint theory and Copycat share the idea that analogical cognition involves cognitive processes that operate below the level of abstract reasoning. Both computational models—to the extent that they are capable of performing successful analogical reasoning—challenge the idea that a successful model of analogical reasoning must take the form of a set of quasi-logical criteria.
In the first place, even if the recognition and construction of analogies are largely a matter of perception, this does not eliminate the need for critical evaluation of analogical inferences. Regardless of how a program or human generates such an inference, we are entitled to ask: Is this a good analogy? See below for more details on species extinctions. Recent indications suggest that ocean acidification may, in turn, reduce the carbon-absorption efficiency of the ocean.
This means a potentially faster build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, accelerating global warming. These include contamination of the air and surface waters with industrial pollutants. Some of these pollutants the metal mercury, for example go up smoke stacks to later fall and contaminate soil and water, while others are leached into surface waters from waste storage facilities.
- Climate Science Glossary
- What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know About Capitalism
Many ocean and fresh water fish are contaminated with mercury as well as numerous industrial organic chemicals. Tropical forests, the areas of the greatest terrestrial biodiversity, are being destroyed at a rapid pace. Land is being converted into oil palm plantations in Southeast Asia—with the oil to be exported as a feedstock for making biodiesel fuel.
In South America, rainforests are commonly first converted to extensive pastures and later into use for export crops such as soybeans. This deforestation is causing an estimated 25 percent of all human-induced release of CO2. We are all contaminated by a variety of chemicals. A recent survey of twenty physicians and nurses tested for sixty-two chemicals in blood and urine—mostly organic chemicals such as flame retardants and plasticizers—found that each participant had at least 24 individual chemicals in their body, and two participants had a high of 39 chemicals detected.
A recent survey estimated that over 17, animals and plants are at risk of extinction. He said many more species that have yet to be assessed could also be under serious threat. One of the many consequences of degraded ecosystems with fewer species appears to be greater transmission of infectious diseases.
It is also clear that the effects of continuing down the same path will be devastating. The startling conclusion is that continued exploitation of all fossil fuels on Earth threatens not only the other millions of species on the planet but also the survival of humanity itself—and the timetable is shorter than we thought.
Each of these is considered essential to maintaining the relatively benign climate and environmental conditions that have existed during the last twelve thousand years the Holocene epoch. The sustainable boundaries in three of these systems—climate change, biodiversity, and human interference with the nitrogen cycle—may have already been crossed. Some environmentalists are concerned that, if world output keeps expanding and everyone in developing countries seeks to attain the standard of living of the wealthy capitalist states, not only will pollution continue to increase beyond what the earth system can absorb, but we will also run out of the limited non-renewable resources on the globe.
The Year Update, is an example of concern with this issue. The Worldwatch Institute has recently estimated that a world which used biocapacity per capita at the level of the contemporary United States could only support 1. Many people are aware of the need for social justice when solving this problem, especially because so many of the poor are living under dangerously precarious conditions, have been especially hard hit by environmental disaster and degradation, and promise to be the main victims if current trends are allowed to continue.
We wholeheartedly agree with all of these concerns. Nevertheless, within the environmental movement, there are some for whom it is clear that mere technical adjustments in the current productive system will not be enough to solve the dramatic and potentially catastrophic problems we face.
It is our contention that most of the critical environmental problems we have are either caused, or made much worse, by the workings of our economic system. Even such issues as population growth and technology are best viewed in terms of their relation to the socioeconomic organization of society.
Environmental problems are not a result of human ignorance or innate greed. They do not arise because managers of individual large corporations or developers are morally deficient. It is precisely the fact that ecological destruction is built into the inner nature and logic of our present system of production that makes it so difficult to solve.
The overwhelming environmental problems facing the world and its people will not be effectively dealt with until we institute another way for humans to interact with nature—altering the way we make decisions on what and how much to produce. Our most necessary, most rational goals require that we take into account fulfilling basic human needs, and creating just and sustainable conditions on behalf of present and future generations which also means being concerned about the preservation of other species.
We are, in fact, largely oblivious to this worldwide system, much as fish are oblivious to the water in which they swim. It recognizes no limits to its own self-expansion—not in the economy as a whole; not in the profits desired by the wealthy; and not in the increasing consumption that people are cajoled into desiring in order to generate greater profits for corporations.
Indeed, businesses, according to the inner logic of capital, which is enforced by competition, must either grow or die—as must the system itself.
There is little that can be done to increase profits from production when there is slow or no growth. Under such circumstances, there is little reason to invest in new capacity, thus closing off the profits to be derived from new investment. There is also just so much increased profit that can be easily squeezed out of workers in a stagnant economy. If a corporation is large enough it can, like Wal-Mart, force suppliers, afraid of losing the business, to decrease their prices.
But these means are not enough to satisfy what is, in fact, an insatiable quest for more profits, so corporations are continually engaged in struggle with their competitors including frequently buying them out to increase market share and gross sales.
It is true that the system can continue to move forward, to some extent, as a result of financial speculation leveraged by growing debt, even in the face of a tendency to slow growth in the underlying economy.
But this means, as we have seen again and again, the growth of financial bubbles that inevitably burst. Since there would be no investment in new productive capacity, there would be no economic growth and accumulation, no profits generated. What capital strives for and is the purpose of its existence is its own expansion. Why would capitalists, who in every fiber of their beings believe that they have a personal right to business profits, and who are driven to accumulate wealth, simply spend the economic surplus at their disposal on their own consumption or less likely still give it to workers to spend on theirs—rather than seek to expand wealth?
If profits are not generated, how could economic crises be avoided under capitalism? To the contrary, it is clear that owners of capital will, as long as such ownership relations remain, do whatever they can within their power to maximize the amount of profits they accrue. A stationary state, or steady-state, economy as a stable solution is only conceivable if separated from the social relations of capital itself.
Capitalism is a system that constantly generates a reserve army of the unemployed; meaningful, full employment is a rarity that occurs only at very high rates of growth which are correspondingly dangerous to ecological sustainability. For background, we should note that the U. In addition, those working part-time but wanting to work full-time are not considered to be officially unemployed. The unemployment rate for the more expanded definition of unemployment U-6 provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which also includes the above categories i.
In the following analysis, we focus only on the official unemployment data. What, then, do we see in the relationship between economic growth and unemployment over the last six decades?
During the eleven years of very slow growth, less than 1. In 70 percent nine of thirteen of the years when GDP grew between 1. During the twenty-three years when the U. Only in the thirteen years when the GDP grew at greater than 5. While slow or no growth is a problem for business owners trying to increase their profits, it is a disaster for working people. What this tells us is that the capitalist system is a very crude instrument in terms of providing jobs in relation to growth—if growth is to be justified by employment.
It will take a rate of growth of around 4 percent or higher, far above the average growth rate, before the unemployment problem is surmounted in U.
Worth noting is the fact that, since the s, such high rates of growth in the U. In addition, they and their governments working on behalf of corporate interests help to secure entry and control over key natural resources such as oil and a variety of minerals. It is estimated that some thirty million hectares of land roughly equal to two-thirds of the arable land in Europemuch of them in Africa, have been recently acquired or are in the process of being acquired by rich countries and international corporations.
The story of centuries of European plunder and expansion is well documented. The result is a more rapacious global exploitation of nature and increased differentials of wealth and power. Such corporations have no loyalty to anything but their own bottom lines.
Natural resources are used in the process of production—oil, gas, and coal fuelwater in industry and agriculturetrees for lumber and papera variety of mineral deposits such as iron ore, copper, and bauxiteand so on. Some resources, such as forests and fisheries, are of a finite size, but can be renewed by natural processes if used in a planned system that is flexible enough to change as conditions warrant.
Future use of other resources—oil and gas, minerals, aquifers in some desert or dryland areas prehistorically deposited water —are limited forever to the supply that currently exists. Business owners and managers generally consider the short term in their operations—most take into account the coming three to five years, or, in some rare instances, up to ten years. This is the way they must function because of unpredictable business conditions phases of the business cycle, competition from other corporations, prices of needed inputs, etc.
They therefore act in ways that are largely oblivious of the natural limits to their activities—as if there is an unlimited supply of natural resources for exploitation. Even if the reality of limitation enters their consciousness, it merely speeds up the exploitation of a given resource, which is extracted as rapidly as possible, with capital then moving on to new areas of resource exploitation.
When each individual capitalist pursues the goal of making a profit and accumulating capital, decisions are made that collectively harm society as a whole.
The length of time before nonrenewable deposits are exhausted depends on the size of the deposit and the rate of extraction of the resource. While depletion of some resources may be hundreds of years away assuming that the rate of growth of extraction remains the samelimits for some important ones—oil and some minerals—are not that far off.
Making a New Dog? | BioScience | Oxford Academic
For example, while predictions regarding peak oil vary among energy analysts—going by the conservative estimates of oil companies themselves, at the rate at which oil is currently being used, known reserves will be exhausted within the next fifty years. The prospect of peak oil is projected in numerous corporate, government, and scientific reports. The question today is not whether peak oil is likely to arrive soon, but simply how soon.
When extraction begins to decline, as is projected for oil within the near future, price increases will put even more pressure on what had been, until recently, the boast of world capitalism: The well-documented decline of many ocean fish species, almost to the point of extinction, is an example of how renewable resources can be exhausted.
It is in the short-term individual interests of the owners of fishing boats—some of which operate at factory scale, catching, processing, and freezing fish—to maximize the take.
Hence, the fish are depleted. No one protects the common interest. In a system run generally on private self-interest and accumulation, the state is normally incapable of doing so. This is sometimes called the tragedy of the commons. But it should be called the tragedy of the private exploitation of the commons. The situation would be very different if communities that have a stake in the continued availability of a resource managed the resource in place of the large-scale corporation.
Corporations are subject to the single-minded goal of maximizing short-term profits—after which they move on, leaving devastation behind, in effect mining the earth. The depletion of fish off the coast of Somalia because of overfishing by factory-scale fishing fleets is believed to be one of the causes for the rise of piracy that now plagues international shipping in the area.
Interestingly, the neighboring Kenyan fishing industry is currently rebounding because the pirates also serve to keep large fishing fleets out of the area.
This is occurring not only with the major fisheries, but also with groundwater for example, the Oglala aquifer in the United States, large areas of northwestern India, Northern China, and a number of locations in North Africa and the Middle Eastwith tropical forests, and even with soils.