You've put in a lot of work on this but I hate your sub-title.
"Hey, we've got global warming, the Greenland ice cap is melting, but
don't worry, we can take care of it with no cost or inconvenience to
people, and business profits will go UP!" Well, it is not persuasive
to me -- because the claim hasn't moved people worried about business
profits.
Here are the two fallacies that I see with Gar's thesis. Ironically they are lifted straight from the Introduction of his book:
1) "Again, energy is almost never consumed for its own sake. We use
power to accomplish goals. If your new car can get you where you want to go as quickly,
safely, and pleasurably as your old one, you don't mind that it burns a lot less fuel in the
process.."
I say energy is indeed consumed for its own sake. More precisely for the sake of that false deity called GDP growth and its microeconomic offspring, consumerism.
2) "If we did not care about global warming, air pollution, and human health, this would not
be our lowest priced alternative. Excluding such effects, it would be cheapest to install
the least expensive of the efficiency and renewable measures, and use fossil fuels to
supply most remaining needs."
You are assuming a level of rationality that homo economicus has never been known to exhibit.
-raghu.
