I've noticed something interesting about the way trade-offs are
discussed in the environmental debate. Lomborg likes economic growth,
and wants low carbon taxes. He therefore argues that economic growth
is a necessary pre-condition for environmental imrpovements, and that
there are important trade-offs between high carbon taxes or Kyoto and
economic development, ie we can have either an inconsequential Kyoto
or clean drinking water for a billion.
On the other hand, conservationists who happen to like polar bear
habitat, or the preservation of ocean eco-systems, argue that, no
there are no trade-offs here, really, the preservation of eco-systems
is a necessary pre-condition for human welfare and economic activity.
If there are trade-offs, they are ones between laziness (not changing
to an energy efficient light bulb) or egomania (say wanting powerful
cars) and the end of the world, as we know it.
In other words, there either are no trade-offs, where we'd have to
give up one thing to have another, or they are so damn obvious that
any sane person would know what to painlessly make do without.
I do wonder how much of this is rhetorical, and how much it is based
in fact. Are there really no hard choices to be made?
To the Lomborgists I say, is it really true that we couldn't afford
clean drinking water, if we do Kyoto? If it's really such a good deal,
why not finance it from say reduced military or Western social
security expenditure?
And can we really say across the board that there's no trade-off
between economic growth and protecting species habitats?
To the conservationists I say, how do you know that ocean
acidification is a major menace to human welfare? You are sure that
it's not wishful thinking driving your arguments, and that the desire
to protect habitat for its own sake is influencing your thinking on
how important these habitats really are for human welfare?
Couldn't it be that we actually do have a choice between some
substantial extra human welfare, and major changes in eco-systems?
That it's neither the case that extra growth will in and of itself
protect the eco-systems, or that eco-system impacts will be such to
make growth impossible?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
