Growth and CO2
An amusing article from the Register. A British economist says that economic growth and CO2 emissions are inextricably linked, and in order to reduce CO2 emissions, the economy will have to shrink.
Money Quotes:
Asked if this wasn’t, in the end, going to mean a fairly hair-shirt lifestyle for us Brits - no cars, no tumble dryers, fewer showers and iPods and so on - Bond said that “economic wealth isn’t the same as happiness or directly linked to quality of life … It’s about a quantity lifestyle - more and more stuff - versus quality”.
And
“The idea of a technological fix is one we should be cautious about,” he said. “So often there are unintended consequences or trade-offs. Look at the ‘paperless office’ - there’s now more paper, not less. Look at biofuels. I’d be wary of believing that a technology solution will arrive in time.
Yes, unintended consequences of technological change…. As if gutting the economy has no unintended consequences at all.
If shrinking emissions means shrinking the economy - if there really is no way to innovate - Jesus, is Paris Hilton smarter than the entire western political class? - If that’s true we’re doomed.
My bet is we can find a way to provide technological civilization - greener energy, nuclear power, smaller better designed cars, and make money doing it.
Comment by Walter R. Moore — August 6, 2008 @ 8:04 am
Of course there are ways to shrink emissions whilst growing the economy. But, unfortunately, a number of the people in charge of the ‘green’ movement do not want us to innovate our way out of this problem. Because innovation means corporations and humans get to stay rich and powerful, and, unfortunately, green politics and marxist politics have become intertwined.
Let me be clear - not every advocate for green energy and more sustainable lifestyles is a marxist. I don’t have a problem with people advocating for reductions in pollution, concern about toxic waste, etc.
But at the end of the day, the asteroid that will eventually hit the Earth will not care how clean the air and water is. If we deliberately stifle our technological innovation, or if we were to eliminate ourselves from the planet, who will save all the bunnies and chipmunks?
Until we have a highly reliable asteroid detection and diversion system, or (even better) multiple sustainable colonies on other planets (and ideally other solar systems), all life on Earth is at risk.
We may do a piss-poor job of husbanding the Earth’s creatures, and I’m sure we could do better, but at the end of the day, we are far more munificent than Lucifer’s Hammer will ever be.
Comment by jb — August 6, 2008 @ 10:21 am