Friday
22Dec2006
ECONOMISTS AGREE ON GLOBAL WARMING....
Friday, December 22, 2006 at 08:09AM Well, it MAY be the dismal science but it's worth reflecting.....
Why do economists generally conclude that the economic impact of climate change is likely to be small, not large?
The growing literature on this topic suggests that most parts of the economy are not very vulnerable to climate change. Just as importantly, parts of the economy that might be negatively impacted are pretty flexible and adaptable to change. If climate does change, crops can be modified, different crops can be planted and crops can be planted in different places, for example. If sea levels rise, we have the ability and resources to build protective structures or, in a worse case scenario, simply move to higher ground.
Thus, while potential climate changes might be devastating to parts of the environment, most economists don't think that it will affect our economic standard of living much, one way or the other. The bottom line is that recent history has shown economists that the primary cause of economic growth is technological improvement. Climate change cannot staunch the global torrent of new discoveries, processes and products. Human ingenuity is the ultimate resource and - as far as most economists are concerned - rising greenhouse gas levels cannot imperil this.
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (14)
Wouldn't that rather depend on the nature of the change?
For example although I am no economist I suspect that if the change were so severe as to take out the phytoplankton on which all living things depend, this might have an adverse effect on house prices.
As someone who did my degree in economics, I can assure you that one thing an economist would never give you is a straight answer!
It is investing in new technologies that will be more environmentally benign and the basis of the technology that will come after the hydro carbon era.
So while our cousins across the pond are investing for a cleaner future to enhance their standard of life we have smug self appointed enviromentalist elites trying to dictate people's lifestyles and playing the politics of fear to gain positions of influence they do not deserve.
eg
Problem: exhaust emissions are dirty.
US response - Invest in bio fuels and hydrogen technology research
Peter's response - stop people driving
"For example although I am no economist ....."
What is your field of expertise?
I'm curious!
After you. I don't want to embarrass you as I strongly suspect you may not have one :-)
1. "smug self appointed enviromentalist elites "
You mean scientists doing their job?
2. "Peter's response - stop people driving"
No it's not. Show where I said this.
3. "ps - the grain fields are already being converted to bio fuels"
So bio-fuels will grow in desert conditions? LOL!
The only economic factor in the "global warming" scenario is the attack on the economies of the west that the idiots that support the yoko ono treaty which is nothing but a communist anti capitalist fabrication of a bunch of old dope smokin tree huggers trying to destroy the west by creating a false cause for a phenominom that has been taking place in cycles long before man had ever slapped four wheels on a combustion engine and discovered one of the great joys of life....
On a more serious note is anyone going to come up with technology to control El Nino and some of the other side effects of global warming? We talk of terraforming Mars and we can't handle a simple thing like an ocean current?
"the yoko ono treaty which is nothing but a communist anti capitalist fabrication of a bunch of old dope smokin tree huggers trying to destroy the west.."
LOL!