Go on, give me one.
I don't mean "makes environmentalists feel good". I want something quantified, preferably one that will offset the increased costs to consumers and producers.
Bjorn Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" has as its primary thesis that even if anthropomorphic global warming is occurring, it may be more beneficial to humanity to NOT intervene to change this, but to rather target other issues, such as trade, clean water supplies, sanitation and inoculations in developing countries.
In other words, when you take a cold economic appraisal of the problem, it may not be worth addressing it. Certainly, New Zealand going alone whilst the likes of China, Russia, India and the entire Middle East do nothing is madness.
Yet it is mainstream politics to go along with it. What is the imperative for New Zealand to lead on this? What are the costs? More importantly, why do almost all political parties in Parliament sign up to it?
I don't mean "makes environmentalists feel good". I want something quantified, preferably one that will offset the increased costs to consumers and producers.
Bjorn Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" has as its primary thesis that even if anthropomorphic global warming is occurring, it may be more beneficial to humanity to NOT intervene to change this, but to rather target other issues, such as trade, clean water supplies, sanitation and inoculations in developing countries.
In other words, when you take a cold economic appraisal of the problem, it may not be worth addressing it. Certainly, New Zealand going alone whilst the likes of China, Russia, India and the entire Middle East do nothing is madness.
Yet it is mainstream politics to go along with it. What is the imperative for New Zealand to lead on this? What are the costs? More importantly, why do almost all political parties in Parliament sign up to it?
No comments:
Post a Comment