zenwrit

set of propositions that animated the project from the start: that the public does not appreciate the scale of climate risk; that this is in part because we have not spent enough time contemplating the scarier half of the distribution curve of possibilities, especially its brutal long tail, or the risks beyond sea-level rise; that there is journalistic and public-interest value in spreading the news from the scientific community, no matter how unnerving it may be; and that, when it comes to the challenge of climate change, public complacency is a far, far bigger problem than widespread fatalism — that many, many more people are not scared enough than are already “too scared.” In fact, I don’t even understand what “too scared” would mean. The science says climate change threatens nearly every aspect of human life on this planet, and that inaction will hasten the problems. In that context, I don’t think it’s a slur to call an article, or its writer, alarmist. I’ll accept that characterization. We should be alarmed.

But no matter how well-informed you are, you are surely not alarmed enough

There have been some real gains in middle-class jobs by giving tax incentives to multinationals to set up headquarters here, but those can go quite quickly if somebody gives a better incentive somewhere else. This is the situation at the peak, when Panama has absorbed tons of capital from Venezuela's collapse, and just finished going through a gigantic real-estate boom. Things are starting to go downhill now - and of course, that means going back to the status quo which is considerably more precarious to the original one before the boom. Basically, there were beneficiaries, but in the end, everything "inneficient" (read: not owned by multinationals or national champions) got axed. In conclusion, the world is being enslaved by multinationals and whoever benefits is at their mercy.

It is hard to imagine, 173 years later, a leading Western newspaper discussing globalization without a mere mention of its ecological implications. Are humans better off in the short term pillaging every last acre of rainforest and sapping every last drip of oil from under the earth rather than living more modestly and sustainably? YES. Is that ordained avariciousness hurtling us towards ecological catastrophe? This newspaper is not qualified to say, and shouldn't stake claims to anything but its unapologetic defence of the dismal science. Critical thinkers should halt abruptly the comforting lullaby that prompts (apparently) the likes of Larry Ellison to say "I used to think, now I read the Economist". They should look up from their chequebooks long enough to see the impact of the ecological warfare that this newspaper has championed for generations. We must improve globalization, but not before we rebalance capitalism. Natural capital MUST be taken into the equation for our species (and particularly those in fragile economies) to have a chance of flourishing beyond the quarterly reports, annual bonuses and election cycles that keep us chained to our myopic greed.

I am really surprised the economist allowed such a generic article in favour of free trade to be published.

But there is a world of difference between improving globalisation and reversing it.

The annual cost to American consumers of switching to non-Chinese tyres after Barack Obama slapped on anti-dumping tariffs in 2009 was around $1.1 billion, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. That amounts to over $900,000 for each of the 1,200 jobs that were “saved”

Perhaps a fifth of the 6m or so net job losses in American manufacturing between 1999 and 2011 stemmed from Chinese competition; many of those who lost jobs did not find new ones.

to help youth and the general public to understand the risks of drug abuse and for teachers, parents, and health care professionals to keep sending the message that drug addiction can be prevented if a person never abuses drugs.

The right side of the brain is associated with creativity, intuition, visualizing, emotions and daydreaming, among other things. Most of us don’t use it enough because we’re socialized to be logical and rational, thinking in terms of rules, goals, planning and structure. But, we can tap into that creative right brain—art is just one of the many ways of doing so.