Still too expensive to save the planet, say economists 23 August 05

How does moving closer to work/school/shops on next move (to a similarly priced house), buying an efficient car on next car buy, turning off lights not it use, installing low-flow showerheads, reducing meat consumption, reusing everything that can be reused (even back of used paper), reducing consumption of unnecessary & stupid things that bring no benefits or happiness, off-setting part of our car driving by cycling & walking (which improves the health & spirits), cost anything? SUCH MEASURES TO ABATE GW $AVE MONEY! Maybe they meant we save $18 trillion. They just got their plus/minus signs mixed up.

I wonder if they simply say “creating energy from fossil fuels contributes x amount to GDP, if we didn’t burn fossil fuels, all this would be wiped out”. Conveniently forgetting that we would still be creating energy somehow, and expanding new energy sectors, such as wind or solar, must if anything boost economies. I think some oil companies pointed out that their workforce have got exactly the skills needed for off-shore windfarms and wave energy – great. If a company like Ford made fuel-efficient cars their profits would almost certainly be better than they are from their gas-guzzlers, even today. It just makes no sense at all, not even if climate change didn’t exist.

It’s a good & important point you are making, Mark. As a general, philosphical point, I think economists (& many social scientists) fall into the philosophical trap of determinism. Karl “economic superstructure” Marx, Margaret “you can’t buck the markets” Thatcher , the liberal “balanced budgets”, economies of the 1930s, Joe “5 year plan” Stalin , Winston “Gold Standard” Churchill etc. etc. were all able to watch economic pain in the name of bunk economic theory & poor assumptions.

Yet, economics still be extremely valuable – especially micro economic theory which helps us understand how to make markets work efficiently for social goals. Also, we do need to figure how to change our infrastructure away from a hydro-carbon economy in an efficient & cost effective fashion. But it is something we just have to do, and I am convinced it can be done in a way that will not be too painful. What other choice do we have?

from a world into cutting GHGs. First, they could cut their own in cost-effective & money-saving ways. 2nd they could start making things that people really need, “real goods.” 3rd they could get on the bandwagon of making things that help people cut their GHGs (diversifying away from things that increase GHGs), and help prevent/abate the GW harm that’s already in the pipeline (even if we all reduce GHGs tremendously, starting today).

I was always taught how great America is, our significant contributions to the industrial revolution & modern tech, our really great business acumen and entrepreneurship. Those are the qualities we need now applied to abating GW. Unless we’ve become too soft & soft-minded….

even if it were to cost us mucho to cut GHGs and abate GW, there is a moral imperative that we do it to save lives. Luckily we in the West (if we do have to sacrifice (which I don’t think we will have to do very much)) have a lot of blubber we can cut out before we reach the point of harming our own lives/health.

“The good Earth—we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy.”