_(14763491255).jpg){kind=link}
Western Sydney University Researcher Louise Crabtree, writing for The Conversation, thinks in a world torn by climate disasters ownership of private property may have to be sacrificed, to be replaced by a system of housing cooperatives or a roaming right to reside.
Can property survive the great climate transition?
Property is under threat, physically and conceptually, from climate change.
July 13, 2017 6.06am AEST
Author
Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University
As we become an increasingly urban species, urban resilience is emerging as a big deal. The idea is generating a lot of noise about how to develop or retrofit cities that can deal with the many challenges before us, or consume less energy in the transition to post-carbon economies.
…
If our cities are to become more resilient and sustainable, our systems of property need to come along for the ride.
…
Models that allow for change
These are live questions. There are no easy answers, but there are places where we might start.
Models such as rolling easements offer one way to handle property that is in flux. Rolling easements are a form of property that recognises that the coast is a dynamic landscape and allows for the coastline of wetlands to migrate inland as sea levels rise.
These sound promising in their capacity to balance private and public interests in property, but their potential has not yet been tested in areas of urban development, such as housing.
Echoing the potential mobility and flexibility of rolling easements are diverse housing tenures that can dislocate the right to reside in place from exclusionary, proprietary title to an individual, speculative housing “asset”.
Examples include housing co-operatives and community land trusts. So far, these have proven effective in delivering a range of affordable and flexible housing options, but still ultimately rely on an understanding that property is static.
…
We might also need to start thinking about our claims not being static but dependent on the web of relationships we are entwined in, including with non-humans. Some say that First Peoples might have a grasp of property dynamics that is more suited to the times we are entering.
…
Read more: http://theconversation.com/can-property-survive-the-great-climate-transition-80672
I would have thought the current system of paying more insurance if you want to live somewhere desirable but vulnerable, like low lying beachfront property, works pretty well. But apparently this solution is not good enough. People who believe they own their own house can’t easily be relocated if some rare species of slime mould is discovered lurking in their back garden.
If you assume the author is an inconsequential fringe academic, think again. According to her university bibliography, in 2009, the author of the article Louise Crabtree received the following recognition from then Federal Minister for Housing Tanya Pilbersek.
… Louise’s work on resilience and governance in community housing was the basis for her receipt of the inaugural Housing Minister’s Award for Early Career Researchers in 2009; in announcing the award, the Hon. Tanya Plibersek described the work as ‘crucial’.
Read more: https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/ics/people/researchers/louise_crabtree
Louise’s reference to the wisdom of the first peoples being “more suited” to surviving the future is also worth a read. The following quote from that referenced Guardian article caught my eye.
The western idea of private property is flawed. Indigenous peoples have it right
…
Our capitalist property regime and economic system have succeeded at producing remarkable surplus. But the benefits of this system too often flow to a small fraction of the population, while land, water, air and people pay the long-term price.
Prior generations responded to similar crises by turning to communism. But today, Marx, Lenin and Mao no longer offer a scythe sharp enough to fell the stalks of capitalism.
Another, more cutting-edge possibility is to heed the diverse indigenous voices displaced and drowned out by imperialism. From Standing Rock to Queensland, colonized and indigenous people are demanding new relationships to water that sustains the life and land which provides for the people.
…
“heed the diverse indigenous voices displaced and drowned out by imperialism.”
I attended a lecture by a first-nations Canadian. One of the points he made was we all needed to live closer to nature. It was the middle of winter, and we were meeting in a warm and comfortable western-technology, capitalism-enabled, structure.
What did he have in mind — we should all gather outside by a fire, maybe?
““heed the diverse indigenous voices displaced and drowned out by imperialism.”
Here’s are some of the indigenous voices around my neck of the woods.
They don’t look too “drowned out by imperialism” to me. The Cherokee Indians are giving money to the white man, not the other way around. Bet you don’t hear these kinds of stories very much. That wouldn’t fit in with the Left’s narrative that all minorities are oppressed by the white man and western civilization. Actually, minorities are doing pretty good in the United States.
https://muskogeenow.com/cherokees-donate-half-a-million-dollars-to-muskogee-county-schools
Cherokees donate half a million dollars to Muskogee County schools
The only interesting thing is this pathetic climate kook’s thinly veiled (and poorly written) sales pitch on communism is her trial use of the *next*big*word* to describe global warming…errr climate disruption….errr climate change errr “the great climate transition” Ta daaaa! These arrogant ass hat pathetic cynical liars are using this deluded commie sorry excuse for an academic to trot out yet another marketing term to sell their religious obsession over CO2.
As has been stated elsewhere, the whole CAGW movement is little more than another tool to attack capitalism.
And yet, people around the world keep electing left-wing governments that adopt these type of ideas (whether they truly believe the ideas are good or simply useful for political purposes).
Quit voting for them and only vote for right-leaning parties that understand how important economics and property rights are to our standard of living.
It IS the only way to stop these simplistic policies from being implemented. Look at the world today and you’ll see all kinds of crazy policies that should have been laughed at by decision-makers in normal circumstances, are actually being adopted.
Vote for common sense.
read Ayn Rand’s “WeThe Living” this has already been tried.
you may know it from it’s previous name ….COMMUNISM and the SOCIALISTS who claim to be helping us poor people are COMMUNISTS.
More and more feminine ‘nurture and caring’ in the once mannly pursuit of climate science. Politics, too, is getting overrun by the ‘fairer sex’ and they bring a strong ‘want to look after you’ instinct. Oh I know the exceptions are there, but most of these were the early ones like Golda Meir, Thatcher, Bhutto… Having been raised by a strong mother and having a genius older sister and having ‘met’ Judith Curry, Janice Moore, Pamela Gray and others enjoining the fight for integrity and freedom I know there are de facto real liberated women still around. The net, however, is a scary bunch. They definitely bring a socialist collective bias to the table, also a once manly pursuit.
I’m likely committing a felony here attacking a member of the ‘diversity,’ from which my type has been excluded.
indeed …you have committed the grievous crime of truth
Elementary. Nomadic hunter-gatherers don’t fight for a better place to build a home. They fight for better hunting grounds.
Let’s take 7.5 billion people and make them hunter-gatherers again.
First impact is the gangs and strongmen with the most guns run everything and millions are killed every month as these gangs fight it out and try to control populations.
Secondly, every animal on Earth gets killed within a few months. Every piece of wood that can be burnt gets burnt within the first winter. Nice Earth now. No animals and no trees.
Thirdly, world population falls back to several million and the only good places to live are where a few smart gangs reinstate capitalism and property rights and democracy.
Bill, I would love to share your optimism. To get the message across, we must delete “Thirdly”.
TheConversation is strictly censored to enforce the climate alarmist viewpoint.
Their “Community Standards” claim that they welcome disagreement expressed in constructive, on-topic, respectful comments. They say, “we will only remove comments that don’t violate these standards in exceptional circumstances.”
Don’t believe it. Eight of my eleven comments on a May 31 climate change article were deleted by their moderators, even though all eight abided by their Community Standards. The reason was apparently that what I wrote cast doubt on various aspects of climate alarmism.
I’ve sent numerous emails to eleven different people at TheConversation, over a period of six weeks, asking why my comments were deleted, without result. This is the closest thing I’ve gotten to a substantive reply:
I replied:
My email was ignored, as were five follow-ups over the next five weeks.
All commenters are equal, but some are more equal.
You violated the unwritten standard: Thou shall not question AGW.
You’re right, Rhoda R, and/or perhaps this one: “Thou shalt not critique our articles.”
This is the first comment I posted on their article. I thought I was very gentle. I even started out by complimenting them. But they nevertheless deleted my comment (and 7 of the other 10 I posted):
The Conversation isn’t a conversation, apparently.
This is a pretty common Internet thing, The Inappropriate Name. If something is labeled “truth,” it’s pretty much always made up, and if it’s labeled “real,” it’s fake.
Good observation, Merovign. Many other examples of The Inappropriate Name come to mind: “Skeptical Science” (which tolerates precious little skepticism), Tamino’s Open Mind (which is even more close-minded than SkS), “Principia-Scientific” (which is completely unscientific), etc., etc.
But the problem is not just on the Internet. The Greens passionately strive to prevent greening of planet Earth, Planned Parenthood is in the business of terminating parenthood by terminating young lives, 9-11 Truthers lie like rugs, Christian Science is neither Christian nor scientific, etc.
We live in
interestingOrwellian times.Moderators, did you notice my comment yesterday, which apparently went to “spam” (presumable because I mentioned that which shall not be named)?
It’s also well established lefty or тоталiтаяуаи nomenclature. “The Peoples’ Republic of…, Deutsche Democratische Republik – Merkel’s political training ground-, New Democratic Party and other protesteth too much usages.
Dave,
I’ve had similar experiences with The Conversation. It has been my experience that while Mike Hansen is often arrogant and insulting, he has done his homework. However, I’ve been routinely insulted and even threatened by a T J Martin, and complained about it, and they have done nothing. So, yes, some commenters are more equal than others.
Mike Hansen is well-versed in climate activists’ talking points, but he doesn’t care much whether they are true. For example, he wrote:
I replied:
The moderators deleted both comments.
I wanted the folks at The Conversation to have the opportunity to respond, so a few days ago I sent the following email to/cc 21 people/addresses at theconversation.com. Thus far, none of them have either replied to me or posted anything here.
Dear Ms. Glassey and Ms. Balinska,
(Note: I’ve cc’d this to additional people at The Conversation.)
Unlike The Conversation, I believe in open dialog. In that spirit, I’d like to draw your attention to the comments I’ve just posted about The Conversation, on the world’s top climate blog, here, in case you wish to respond:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/12/the-conversation-private-home-ownership-may-not-be-viable-because-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-2550484
Unlike The Conversation, WUWT welcomes polite, constructive comments from both sides of the climate debate.
In my comments I warned WUWT readers that, “TheConversation is strictly censored to enforce the climate alarmist viewpoint.”
Another reader confirmed that he’s “had similar experiences with The Conversation.”
If you wish to explain or defend The Conversation’s censorship of conversations, or if you wish to defend the falsehoods on your “Community Standards” and “Who We Are” pages, feel free to respond there. WUWT generally keeps articles open for comments for about a week, so you have a few days left to respond.
The Conversation sounds great, “on paper.” If The Conversation’s policy declarations were truthful, I think it would be a wonderful project.
But much of the material on the “Community Standards” and “Who We Are” pages is untruthful. Here are some examples:Claim: “Our aim is to promote better understanding of current affairs and complex issues. And hopefully allow for a better quality of public discourse and conversation.”
Reality: I like your Safire-esque declaration that you seek “better quality of public discourse,” while using a period where a comma belongs. But the claim is false. The Conversation actually works to prevent understanding of complex issues, by censoringpublic discourse and conversation, to prevent correction of hoary leftist myths.
Claim: “We aim to help rebuild trust in journalism.”
Reality: The Conversation destroys trust in its own journalism, by censoring conversations, promoting untruthful propaganda, and misrepresenting its policies.
Claim: “All contributors must abide by our Community Standards policy.”
Reality: Blatant violations of the Community Standards by leftists are routinely tolerated, and comments by conservatives are deleted even when they abide by those standards.
Claim: “We believe in open access and the free-flow of information.”
Reality: Information which challenges The Conversation’s editorial viewpoint is ruthlessly culled.
Claim: “We’ll delete: personal attacks directed at anyone.”
Reality: Insults, name-calling, and other personal attacks are welcomed on The Conversation, as long as they are directed toward conservatives.
Claim: The Conversation demands that contributors: “Treat people with the respect you’d like to receive. Admit when you’re wrong. You’ll come across opinions you disagree with. That doesn’t make them invalid.”
Reality: The Conversation does not respect of tolerate opinions not shared by their editors, no matter how well-supported.
Claim: “As per our policy on removing content, we will only remove comments that don’t violate these standards in exceptional circumstances.”
Reality: The Conversation takes a “slash and burn” approach to conservative comments, without regard to whether they abide by the The Conversation’s written standards.
Claim: Constructive comments, backed up by evidence, “won’t be” deleted.
Reality: That is the exact opposite of the truth.
Dave
the fellow who wrote the article for the guardian that is referenced belongs to a tribe in central british columbia. Their tribal website says they wrote a letter in history that stated their claim to title of land to the “exclusion of others” . I wonder if he has read it….”One fundamental principle of our traditional law thus laid out by Sk’elép thousands of years ago is that each nation collectively
holds its respective homeland and its resources at the exclusion of outsiders.”…
My comment to her and those who agree with her is, you first.
I wonder what would happen if someone decide to ‘test the balance between public and private ownership of property’ at her place?
I’m guessing we would hear the usual caterwauling about it being different when you talk about her stuff.
I accepted a long time ago that if CAGW was real enough that governments decided appropriate (yet extreme) measures had to be taken, then the typical suburban living was simply not sustainable for people at my income level. The only affordable option would be to move to a downtown location where I could take advantage of things like public transportation and communal housing to reduce energy usage.
Of course I don’t think that this would happen to me due to my age and the rate of climate change, but I will keep an eye out for a time to sell my large house with sizable yard and in ground pool before that happens. That way some other sucker will be stuck with the white elephant I call home. This way I can pass on whatever I can to my kids before I die and hopefully they will be able to survive while the others suffer the folly of their poor planning parents.
This is what will happen if Gore, Klein and the rest of the prophets of doom get their way.
Yet the homes featured in commercials and home improvement shows are very often huge houses—4000 sq feet or more. You rarely see a small house. The new homes around town are also huge. I see no evidence that anyone has gotten the message about capitalism and sustainability that the warmists seem to want people to believe. The trend is bigger and bigger, except in NYC where they are trying to talk people into living in homes barely larger than a car.
Moderator—please delete my last comment. You’ll see why when you get to it.
Reply: Not gonna try and unscramble that.~ctm
Yet the homes featured in commercials and home improvement shows are very often huge houses—4000 sq feet or more. You rarely see a small house. The new homes around town are also huge. I see no evidence that anyone has gotten the message about capitalism and sustainability that the warmists seem to want people to believe. The trend is bigger and bigger, except in NYC where they are trying to talk people into living in homes barely larger than a car.
Yet the homes featured in commercials and home improvement shows are very often huge houses—4000 sq feet or more. You rarely see a small house. The new homes around town are also huge. I see no evidence that anyone has gotten the message about capitalism and sustainability that the warmists seem to want people to believe. The trend is bigger and bigger, except in NYC where they are trying to talk people into living in homes barely larger than a car.
Don’t fret Reasonable, this stuff is collapsing as we speak.
Scythe? I thought they preferred a sharp hoe?
So, resilience is the new buzzword for global socialism.
sustainability worked for a while but a true/accurate definition is difficult with respect to reality, so resilience needs to be in the mix.
If I ever do get around to my Australian vacation, I guess I will have a place to stay for a few days. I hope Louise has a nice guest room and a well stocked fridge (food is property, right?).
If no guest room, I’ll just take the couch. I hope it’s comfortable.
If she already has someone on her couch, at least I’ll be able to use her bathroom while I am camping in her back yard.
She can have the couch! Unless more entitled folks show up!
Amen to all of the above. Crabtree’s essay has got to be tongue in cheek.
A “roaming right to reside”???? Sure come on by. I’ll show you my stationary right to defend.
O.K., I won’t vacation in your back yard … with the expectation of being able to use your shower.
Freedom and warmism are incompatible.
The simple truth!
It was *NEVER* about climate. It was always about power and control.
Sounds like Ursula le Guin.
I’d like to send her a letter telling her how much I appreciated her insights and determination to personally practice what she preaches.
Anybody have the current address of her recycle bin?
Oh, private property rights will be perfectly fine for the nobles, lords, the ruling class, i.e. “The elite” but not, of course for the “serfs”. This entire AGW scam is designed to return the world population to a modern-day feudal system. The “modern serfs” will be able to be educated and earn a living – in order to maintain civilization and a “Royal” standard of living for the elites, but they will never be capable of acquiring independent wealth, as they will be “carbon-taxed” out of any possible savings or disposable income. And with socialized medicine like Europe has now or Obamacare (future government single-payer) the elites will control your healthcare, and ultimately how long you live once you become ill.
This is great – it is becoming easier & easier for the masses to see that CAGW is just an excuse to push a socialist agenda. Articles like this will hasten CAGWs demise.
She is actually nice in person. Her politics and views on certain subjects is questionable however.
Part of the UN’s agenda 21 is to end private property. In fact, agenda 21 is about a communist world government run by the UN. The global warming scam is the guise that it will be brought in under.
We share your house comrade. Twelve immigrants from Syria will live in your bedroom.