There is an insightful short article in The Guardian by Irwin Stelzer, who is the director of the centre for economic policy studies at the Hudson Institute, and editor of the book Neoconservatism:
Gordon Brown is eager to prove that red is green, while David Cameron is urging voters to “vote blue, go green”. So far, so good. But the prime minister is having some difficulty answering the question “How green are your taxes?” – while the leader of the opposition’s promise to make green taxes “replacement taxes, not new taxes”, contains more than a dash of Brownian stealth.
Continue reading Brown’s pale green policies are more honest than most, Unlike Cameron, the prime minister grasps the need to balance environmental policies against economic growth.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The notion of “Balanc[ing] Environmental Policies Against Economic Growth” is madness.
At least two millennia of human experience has proved conclusively that successful economies invest in environmental improvements.
We live on this planet, and we like it here. And economic success leads, by a force of nature, to environmental protection.
Anyone who cares a rat’s patootie about the arrow of causality, or has paid attention to the undeniable direction of history, will acknowledge that human prosperity leads to environmental protection and improvement, and *not* the other way around.
The gang-greens will refuse to understand this, because they’re paid not to.
And also, because they’re neither students of history, nor economics.
Paul – “Continue reading Brown’s pale green policies are more honest than most, Unlike Cameron, the prime minister grasps the need to balance environmental policies against economic growth.”
This is true as long as we can. Let us hope that the climate lets us continue doing this while we transition. Let us hope that there is no climate catastrophe that will force us to put environmental before economics.
Stelzer’s article is pretty good in that he rightfully points to the real villains, “the mindlessness of the green-at-any-cost crowd”. The bifurcation that is occuring in the AGW debate, under the stewardship of such honest brokers as tipping point hansen and profile-with-a-price gore, is between real environmental issues and the phony issue of CO2 based AGW. The real issues have been well documented by people like Lomborg, and include regional pollution, deforestation, fouling of water sources and the like. In this respect, the worst man-made environmental disasters of the last 50 years, outside those within the communist gulag, have been those commited by saddam; the draining of the southern Iraq marshes and the torching of the Kuwaiti oil-fields; closely followed by the annual burning off in Borneo and the Amazon. But these are not topical amongst the AGW hypocrites because they allow no cheap shots at evil capitalism and the West.
Schiller is pretty much spot on when reflecting that successful economies invest in environmental improvements. The forest sector is one in which environment science drives its sustainability. “No tree – no me” applies equally to loggers as to koalas.
Such an example that can be seen first hand is Tasmania’s Styx valley that has been subject to industrial scale harvesting since the early 1940s. It was the birth place of clear fell burn and sow regeneration of the wet eucalypt forest. Despite being the feed stock for the pulp and newspaper mill at Boyer, the foresters and newspaper barons took time out to reserve some of the tallest trees in the world. Today due to the forest sector’s good management, the Styx is both a place of timber production and of nature’s wonders. Despite almost 70 years of industrial logging the Styx has become the media focal point for environmnetal forest politics and demands to create a “balance” between the economy and the environment.
Ender – you comment seems related to “mindlessness of the green-at-any-cost crowd” from the text of the article.
After the recent hikes in fuel prices any politician campaigning for additional taxes, whether they be carbon or energy, is guaranteed a long stretch on the opposition benches.
Indeed. Despite the oppostion offering little or no prospect of a reduction in fuel tax, they find themselves with a 20 point lead over ‘New Labour’ in the Opinion Polls.
We have two little gems in the SMH 27/6/2008.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/greencollar-jobs-growth-predicted/2008/06/26/1214472673471.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/reporting-rules-set-scene-for-trading-scheme/2008/06/26/1214472673474.html
Inflationary hell could well be the least of our worries by the time Kruddster’s cronies have done us up the date.
Look there goes your job, oh and look again your company has gone bust, oohh, look again the country has lost it’s tax base.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/tyre-factory-to-close-with-loss-of-600-jobs/2008/06/26/1214073388192.html
My recent straw polls are suggesting an undercurrent of, yes, fear. And that’s not fear for the environent, but fear of their immediate economic prospects.
So get out ask a few complete strangers, “How’s things?”
To Ender I regret to report, with any reduction in the economy you won’t get the environment you so desire. And that’s the way it works pal. Simple.
So ponder this litle extreme of government interference, just for the record.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/07/1083911410935.html
Sorry to come to this a bit late but as an engineer I’ve heard lots and lots of time this idea that the only way to ‘look’ after the environment is to grow the economy. Yeah. OK, its just an example of the limits of inductive reasoning and can’t be taken as ‘true’
If you’re still on the fence: grab your favorite earphones, head down to a Best Buy and ask to plug them into a Zune then an iPod and see which one sounds better to you, and which interface makes you smile more. Then you’ll know which is right for you.