“Green Economics” is neither
I just saw an amusing ad on TV. It's from a climate change activist group of some sort and puts forth what they apparently believe is a bullet-proof argument that we can both cool the planet and boost the economy by capping carbon emissions, thus forcing an explosion of renewable energy production. This is the kind of "green economics" that the Obama administration and many Democrats (and a few Republicans) tout. But such a concept is neither green nor economics in any meaningful sense.
To be green, I suppose it would have to be good for the environment. Unfortunately for the green pro-state folks, history shows us that the environment is healthiest under conditions of free markets and private property rights and least healthy under conditions of increasing state meddling. Specifically, the aim of these activists is to cool the planet. But we don't know if the planet is truly warming--data from recent years apparently indicates a fairly flat trendline. Beyond that, since much climate variation seems to be due in large part to solar activity, we don't know how much we could affect it by reducing carbon emissions. To complicate things even further, we don't even know if a warmer planet would actually be worse. It may well result in a dramatic increase in arable land and help mitigate any future (and far more deadly) global cooling.
As for the assertion that the forced limiting of fossil fuel use would somehow boost the economy, that's patently absurd. Making energy more expensive means everyone will have less money left over to spend on other things, thus lowering our standard of living. We would end up with a net loss of wealth and well-being in our society.
Keep that in mind when you hear someone self-righteously proclaiming the mystical goodness of the "green economy."
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!