What is this nonsense?
And third, our economy will be more stable and secure as energy imports wane. Every business will benefit from moderating boom and bust.
We\’re not actually supposed to be worrying about businesses. We\’re supposed to give a shit about consumers. And consumers are very definitely not benefitted by a stable and secure environment for businesses. We want those gales of creative destruction to roar through the economy. More, boom and bust is what brings us the tehnological revolutions: has done from canals to the internet, with railways, electricity and all the great changes inbetween.
A low-carbon economy presents an opportunity, not a cost. Investment in our clean energy future should not be mistaken for a cost to the economy, or the public purse.
Investment isn\’t a cost now eh? Jeebus, how can a man trained as an economist ignore opportunity costs? Or even energy costs? Producing energy via technologies which cost 10 times the alternatives are, umm, a cost.
Instead, as Lord Stern has shown, it can be strong driver of economic growth – boosting demand, and creating new supply in a sustainable way.
Bollocks he did. He showed that, using certain carefully crafted assumptions, doing nothing might in 89 years time be more expensive than doing something. What he didn\’t show was that a certain set of somethings was better than another.
\”Something must be done, this is something, therefore this something must be done\” is not in fact either sound logic nor what Stern managed to prove.
Globally, the low-carbon goods and services industry is worth £3.2 trillion, and employs 28 million people. It is growing by 4 per cent a year, faster than developed world GDP, and will accelerate.
Quite: and as an economist would point out those are costs. 28 million people not curing cancer but faffing about with windmills. This is a cost of getting windmills, for we get windmills not the cure for cancer.
Globally, investment in renewables now outstrips investment in fossil fuels.
A cost again, as we\’re not investing in, say, searching for little green men or in new antibiotics.
The second reason to choose the low-carbon path is self-evident: it is more resource efficient.
No it isn\’t you gargantually stupid onanist. It is \”more expensive\”. More expensive is a way of measuring \”greater resource use\”. We pay 46p per unit of solar PV \’leccie, 9 p for coal derived. Thus each unit of solar energy uses 35 p more in resources than each unit of coal derived. Shit, this isn\’t economics even, this is just accounting!
It uses less energy and fewer resources per unit of GDP.
It would be desirable if it did but:
A survey of 300 top executives from large global corporations found more than three quarters of respondents expect their annual clean energy technology spending to rise over the next five years.
You see? They\’re spending more on it! Increasing their resource use as they go low carbon! Going low carbon increases resource use therefore!
Blimey, is it actually necessary for someone to put aside all of their hard earned professional knowledge when they go into politics?