Lately I've heard several arguments along the lines of "hey we can't be sure that global warming is real and we've grown tired of debating it. Let's just reduce carbon emissions anyway. There's no harm in that, right?" Well, actually there is. You see, everything we do has consequences. Allocating our resources into preventing carbon emissions does have a downside by limiting whatever could have been done with those resources.
Ideas like cap and trade, carbon credits, and laws against using carbon-based energy have a tremendous economic effect. Every time we make a choice there is something we do and something we do not do. It is that second part that we like to ignore. Spending a dollar on cleaning up the environment may be the right choice but that means that dollar won't be spent on anything else like curing cancer or feeding the hungry. So you better be certain that spending the dollar on "fixing" the environment is really fixing it. If not you just did something bad, by not doing good (and instead wasting resources). Whether spending resources on reducing carbon emissions is worth it lies with whether global warming exists and whether that is the solution. So, you can't escape the debate. Saying "what's the harm?" isn't a rhetorical question.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What's the harm in completely wrecking the economy for a non-problem? Hmmm....
ReplyDeleteThe stupid thing is that most other forms of life on Earth would benefit from more CO2. I like how the link says acidification would help ocean life. And as for the Waxman/Markey bill, sucking trillions out of the economy for the comically unambitious goal of .2 degrees? Maybe leveling the house because you might have 5 ants living in the garage (but probably not) is not the solution. No wonder my socialist friend is looking desperately for a "new" economics - the learning we have now is just conservative brainwashing.