4 ms·

If reducing emissions is good for economic growth, then why is government action necessary to enforce it?

root_axis 6y ago
The nature of the threat posed by our current level of emissions is a time sensitive one. Further, "economic growth" doesn't mean anything at the level of individual companies, if your product necessarily implies high emissions (e.g. coal) then your company will experience the opposite of growth even if the overall growth from the green sector eclipses that loss.
- agent008t 6y ago
  Suppose we are 100% confident about the threat. Even then, I fear that it is likely that the EU unilaterally cutting emissions - and most likely limiting their own economic growth - will hurt the EU (particularly relative to China) and only have a minor effect on addressing the threat. By economic growth I mean actual overall economic growth. E.g. if in some location, powering something by coal is more cost-efficient than powering it by solar but you convert to solar anyway, you are limiting economic growth. I do get that it may actually make economic sense if you count third-party effects - e.g. that replacing coal with solar makes the area a much nicer place to be, increasing the value of the land. But my point is that if you truly believe that cutting emissions is a road to increasing the wealth of your nation, you should be talking about increasing the wealth of your nation and adopting policies to that end and see emissions decrease as a side-effect. Otherwise, there is a very easy way of reducing emissions - have people emigrate, make them unable to afford housing or afford to have children, shut down manufacturing and other economic activity, destroy infrastructure or allow it to decay. Given that a lot of people, particularly young people, are struggling in many places in Europe and do not see a particularly bright future to put it mildly, and that China is growing at a rapid pace, unilaterally stunting your already barely-there economic growth just comes off as another act of self-flagellation by Europe.

The nature of the threat posed by our current level of emissions is a time sensitive one. Further, "economic growth" doesn't mean anything at the level of individual companies, if your product necessarily implies high emissions (e.g. coal) then your company will experience the opposite of growth even if the overall growth from the green sector eclipses that loss.

agent008t 6y ago
Suppose we are 100% confident about the threat. Even then, I fear that it is likely that the EU unilaterally cutting emissions - and most likely limiting their own economic growth - will hurt the EU (particularly relative to China) and only have a minor effect on addressing the threat. By economic growth I mean actual overall economic growth. E.g. if in some location, powering something by coal is more cost-efficient than powering it by solar but you convert to solar anyway, you are limiting economic growth. I do get that it may actually make economic sense if you count third-party effects - e.g. that replacing coal with solar makes the area a much nicer place to be, increasing the value of the land. But my point is that if you truly believe that cutting emissions is a road to increasing the wealth of your nation, you should be talking about increasing the wealth of your nation and adopting policies to that end and see emissions decrease as a side-effect. Otherwise, there is a very easy way of reducing emissions - have people emigrate, make them unable to afford housing or afford to have children, shut down manufacturing and other economic activity, destroy infrastructure or allow it to decay. Given that a lot of people, particularly young people, are struggling in many places in Europe and do not see a particularly bright future to put it mildly, and that China is growing at a rapid pace, unilaterally stunting your already barely-there economic growth just comes off as another act of self-flagellation by Europe.