One of the worst debates is the climate change one.
It’s fought on risk/cost but regardless of how bad it turns out much of the cost of going carbon neutral is not really a cost drag but substituting out of resources that make people ill, deform environment & fund awful regimes.
It’s fought on risk/cost but regardless of how bad it turns out much of the cost of going carbon neutral is not really a cost drag but substituting out of resources that make people ill, deform environment & fund awful regimes.
In other words the idea that tackling climate change is a very high cost that’s either worth it or not (depending on your view) is not the whole story.
The benefits of a greener run world are huge even if current climate change projections turn out to be a bit alarmist.
The benefits of a greener run world are huge even if current climate change projections turn out to be a bit alarmist.
Much of the fraught oil debate resembles people worried about what cutting down on smoking will do to the tobacco industry.
Both tobacco & oil are “deadweight industries” that add little in technological advances & money spent on them could be more productively spent elsewhere.
Both tobacco & oil are “deadweight industries” that add little in technological advances & money spent on them could be more productively spent elsewhere.
The idea that that everyone should own an expensive car that many use for an hour a day, fill it will oil extracted from a corrupt dictatorship, transported 1000s miles, then used to clog up roads belching out fumes to make people ill is just not sound economics.
An extensive & economic public transport system, working from home, extensive bike path systems & people being encouraged to move to leasing (both long & short term) green cars would unlikely cost the economy as a whole any additional cost.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
