Ian introduced a new topic that is entitled to a subject title of its own. At his blog, Brad DeLong discussed the topic under the long-winded and all-capitalized title of "BUT WE MUST DO THE WRONG THING!": UNDERSTANDING THE "ECONOMIC" ARGUMENTS AGAINST DEALING WITH GLOBAL WARMING. Meanwhile, a commission has been set up called the "Global Commission on the Economy and Climate" which will conclude in a report next year that "the purported choice between economic growth and battling climate change 'is a false dilemma,'" It's always good idea to make up your mind about the results of your study before you actually undertake it. That way you're less likely to be confused by facts.
Facts? Did I say facts? The two articles below discuss the rather pertinent issue of which facts are relevant and which are not. The would-be technocratic lever-pullers will presumably once again ignore these rather basic insights, some of which date back to before I was born (Kuznets's critique of Commerce Dept.'s NIPA). 1. "Climate policy: The Kyoto approach has failed," Dieter Helm, Nature 491, 663–665 (29 November 2012). "The main problem with the Kyoto approach is that it does not address the carbon footprint — carbon consumption. A country's (and an individual's) carbon footprint is best measured by looking at the carbon embedded in the goods and services that each consumes. Global warming takes no account of national boundaries. If a US consumer buys a car, it matters little whether the steel within it is made in the United States or China. "The difference between carbon production and carbon consumption is not trivial. Take the United Kingdom: from 1990 to 2005, its carbon production fell by around 15%. But carbon consumption went up by around 19% once the carbon embedded in imports is taken into account." 2. "Three persistent myths in the environmental debate," Roefie Hueting, Ecological Economics 18 (1996) 81-88 Abstract: "Throughout the last three decades of working on environmental and resource problems I have encountered three persistent myths: (1) environment conflicts with employment; (2) production must grow to create scope for financing environmental conservation; and (3) although society would like to save the environment, it is too expensive. Testing these three propositions, individually and mutually, leads to the conclusion that as long as they dominate the environmental debate, the world will drift ever further away from environmental sustainability." -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
