Economics has helped to destroy the environment. Can it be used to save it?
Sigh. Economics is a way of understanding the world. So how can that destroy the environment?
Not understanding it, perhaps – but then they go on to discuss how understanding more will be better. So, more economics will save it.
Sigh.
Only some?
Who needs economics?
We can’t even do sums on the environmental costs of the green agenda to deduce its all a load of bollocks.
Flubber.. Most of us here could..
But when, as our Host regularly points out, the numbers presented to us regarding the subject are …. highly redacted.. and may not represent reality or, dare I say it, just short of outright lies..
Why should I expend time and energy in doing Sums for the shifty bastards to prove them wrong when I could be education Lions in properly entertaining table manners?
Especially when said shifty bastards are guaranteed not to listen anyway, and the Lions (mostly) are.
‘The’ Environment? Just one? Where is it?
We live in the age of abstractions and generalisation.
Isn’t Human activity which creates abundance out of scarcity by inventing resources out of what’s lying round on and in the Planet to give maximum output for least input to make us all richer, economics? And providing the money to do that is capitalism.
Same old, same old. It’s been repeated for decades – by what’s his name, Moonbeam, for one – that economics is the cause of environmental problems. I heard a radio show claim that economics teaches that some goods, like air, are so plentiful that they’re free. Yet a couple decades before that heard the comment then why do we pay fines for polluting it, pay fees for broadcasting through the air?
Of course it’s supposed to be a coincidence that the first Earth Day was on Lenin’s 100th birthday.
How is public garbage not externalizing the cost of grossly wasteful manufacturing and packaging practices, incentivized by capitalist economics, onto nature?