Mar 29 2012: Jon, good commentary. I think we should differentiate between militarism and "war like mobilisation". I think the latter could include militarism but doesn't have to. But it's a good reference point to how fast we could move if we chose to do so.
And I don't think the earlier efforts were a mistake as such, they just didn't work - or at least haven't yet. I'm not sure anything else would have been a better idea though, as we have this incredible resistance to change.
Mar 29 2012: Christophe
I think it is important to recognise that while the crisis is inevitable and will trigger the major response, you are right that we definitely need to act now and innovate as fast as we can. While in my view it is too late to avert the crisis, this is inherently unknowable, so acting strongly now is good either way. If it prevents the crisis, great, if not it helps us get through it faster and reduces the harm on the way through. So either way more action now is good!
btw, there are many people looking at the psychology of this and how to get through denial faster.
Mar 21 2012: John
Yes, we all have those days when it all seems impossible to imagine! "Where" can only now be a war like mobilisation in response, and that's why the crisis will have to be accepted first.
Mar 21 2012: John
Thanks for your thoughts and yes, people make the constant mistake of confusing what's possible with what will happen, allowing as you say for vested interest, resistance and so on. There's no doubt we have great potential but we must accept the crisis that will drive us there.
Mar 16 2012: Krisztian
I think Ridley definitely agrees with what I say above re us facing "some serious ecological and resource limits". But he thinks as you say we'll sail through with a few bumps. Time will tell, but I think the scientific evidence suggest those bumps will be quite severe!
Mar 10 2012: Yes, this is THE question. And I hope it turns out that we avoid it. I'd be happy to be wrong! Tom Friedman wrote a column juxtaposing these two possibility a little while ago. You can see it here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/opinion/theres-something-happening-here.html
Mar 10 2012: Let's ignore the denialists! I don't think there is much point engaging with people who live in denial about the climate science. Of course nothing is ever 100% proven, but when every major science academy and grouping in the world come to the same conclusion - that we have serious reason for concern - then arguing the case in public forums is of little benefit. Those who argue it's all a conspiracy or completely wrong, can be safely ignored, not least because responding to them won't make any difference to their thinking and arguing the case just gives them oxygen. Of course, serious scientific scepticism is good and healthy, but we can leave that to the proper scientific process among real and qualified scientists, like Hansen. Our energy should be focused on driving change and transforming the economy (which is also more uplifting!)
Mar 10 2012: Zdenek
I certainly agree that technology will and alreadyis doing great things to get people more connected and in many cases, more active and more engaged in their society. I'm not at all arguing that technology is a bad thing, in fact I think it's a great opportunity. However, we often confuse those benefits with physically addressing the underlying resource constraint issues. Nevertheless, as the crisis hits, this new connectedness will be a terrific benefit to finding and spreading solutions.
Paul
Mar 9 2012: This is a terrific talk from a man who will be remembered as one of the great climate advocates of history. Dogged, determined and courageous, he has risked his career, reputation and personal safety for the greater good.
TEDCred score: +54.70 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: Clean technology, while a huge opportunity, will not go to scale in time to prevent a global economic and social crisis.
And I don't think the earlier efforts were a mistake as such, they just didn't work - or at least haven't yet. I'm not sure anything else would have been a better idea though, as we have this incredible resistance to change.
A reply on Conversation: Clean technology, while a huge opportunity, will not go to scale in time to prevent a global economic and social crisis.
I think it is important to recognise that while the crisis is inevitable and will trigger the major response, you are right that we definitely need to act now and innovate as fast as we can. While in my view it is too late to avert the crisis, this is inherently unknowable, so acting strongly now is good either way. If it prevents the crisis, great, if not it helps us get through it faster and reduces the harm on the way through. So either way more action now is good!
btw, there are many people looking at the psychology of this and how to get through denial faster.
A reply on Conversation: Clean technology, while a huge opportunity, will not go to scale in time to prevent a global economic and social crisis.
A reply on Conversation: Clean technology, while a huge opportunity, will not go to scale in time to prevent a global economic and social crisis.
Yes, we all have those days when it all seems impossible to imagine! "Where" can only now be a war like mobilisation in response, and that's why the crisis will have to be accepted first.
A reply on Conversation: Clean technology, while a huge opportunity, will not go to scale in time to prevent a global economic and social crisis.
Thanks for your thoughts and yes, people make the constant mistake of confusing what's possible with what will happen, allowing as you say for vested interest, resistance and so on. There's no doubt we have great potential but we must accept the crisis that will drive us there.
A reply on Conversation: Clean technology, while a huge opportunity, will not go to scale in time to prevent a global economic and social crisis.
I think Ridley definitely agrees with what I say above re us facing "some serious ecological and resource limits". But he thinks as you say we'll sail through with a few bumps. Time will tell, but I think the scientific evidence suggest those bumps will be quite severe!
A reply on Conversation: Clean technology, while a huge opportunity, will not go to scale in time to prevent a global economic and social crisis.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/opinion/theres-something-happening-here.html
A comment on Talk: James Hansen: Why I must speak out about climate change
A reply on Conversation: Clean technology, while a huge opportunity, will not go to scale in time to prevent a global economic and social crisis.
I certainly agree that technology will and alreadyis doing great things to get people more connected and in many cases, more active and more engaged in their society. I'm not at all arguing that technology is a bad thing, in fact I think it's a great opportunity. However, we often confuse those benefits with physically addressing the underlying resource constraint issues. Nevertheless, as the crisis hits, this new connectedness will be a terrific benefit to finding and spreading solutions.
Paul
A comment on Talk: James Hansen: Why I must speak out about climate change