Comments on: Climate Change 2: Enviro groups need to talk dollars and cents

By: Kevin Cox

Kevin Cox — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Why we should take much notice of economists is beyond me. Surely by now there is no one who takes what they say seriously. Why not hire some people who know about modelling dynamic systems - like the people who study the environment.

Economists base their models on the theory of general equilibrium which is based on a late 1800's view of economic systems as systems in equilibrium - like planets going around the sun.

Obviously such modelling is going to be wrong. Economic theory only works when there are no disruptive changes. They have no idea on how to model the current financial turmoil because the system is in a "chaotic state". I have yet to see an economic model that can explain the past let alone predict the future.

Do not look to economists to solve the problem. They even have this bizarre idea that increasing the price of energy from fossil fuels will somehow lead to investment in renewables. Anyone with half a brain can tell you that it will lead to more energy from fossil fuel because there is more profit in burning fossil fuel because the prices are higher and someone is going to collect that extra profit and little will go to investing in renewables.

Renewable energy is an investment problem NOT a pricing problem. Cut the price of investment (namely the interest rate charged on money invested in renewables) and you can have as much renewable energy as you need for no increase in the price of energy. Do not give me any nonsense that this is inflationary or that it is diverting resources from more profitable uses of the money. We know we have to invest in renewables and we know that if you spend money that produces more money than you spend it cannot be inflationary.

By: Petert

Petert — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Another gee-up for the climate-change-caused-by-human-behaviour lobby. Crikey, I thought you'd be doing some real investigative reporting, instead of being a PC patsy.

How about some meaningful questions like:
1. If the financial experts could have been so wrong for so long, why should we believe the self-appointed climate experts – especially as so many world-renowned scientists disagree with their interpretation of the data.
2. Why is Antarctic ice increasing?
3. Why are we paying over $1.50 per litre for petrol when the price is down to $75 a barrel?

Oh, of course - we should feel good about being gouged on petrol prices if we are good environmental citizens.

…And the oil companies continue to fund the climate change propaganda as they laugh all the way to the bank.

The bank? Oh yes, they just received lots of government (our) money.

Crikey, get it together!

By: Richard L

Richard L — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Bernard - enviro groups (and pundits) need to talk dollars and sense.

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

There appears to be another strand of thought(?) by the neo, neo-cons, emerging from the woodwork. Namely,
the usual flat denial that Climate Change exists. Followed by the “Oh well, by the time the economic crisis is over, there will be less pollution anyway!” Yet, were the people who are concerned for the environment to argue, “It is man made, but nature is responsible,” they would be crucified. But it seems the neo, neo-cons can get away with it. Why? It is laughable that these pre-Darwinian (pre-Cambrian?) thought-mongers can get away with such false premises. Go for it Andrew Bolt, and PeterT, you are doing yourselves proud. And you’re reducing the planet to destruction.

By: Julius

Julius — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Glad to learn that you are an anti-protectionist Mr Keane, but are you half-way numerate? You say “Garnaut very conservatively estimates unchecked climate change will cost nearly 7.5% of GNP by 2100. What’s that for every man, woman and child? ” Not only is 7.5 per cent lower than the sort of losses you can get in 10 years (rather than 92) from the kind of economic mismanagement that has afflicted Japan, Argentina and a lot of more and less likely candidates in recent decades, it is a minute, hardly noticeable, fraction of the increase in GDP that our descendants will enjoy in 2100. Just do some compounding sums at a meagre 1 or 2 per cent. Moreover, it would take a very modest investment now and for a few years to come by way of additional saving and investment to make us prosperous in future to overtake that 7.5%. It follows that almost any diversion of our wealth by making investment decisions which are not a result of business judgment as to what is most profitable but a result of government mandated costs involved in reducing Carbon Pollution (sic!) must make us poorer than we would otherwise be and less able to pay for the mitigation measures which might be needed if global warming caused the problems some predict.

By: D. John Hunwick

D. John Hunwick — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Bernard Keane's double editorial today restores my faith in the fact that there is someone out there that has grasped the enormity of what we are all facing. The sooner we act the lest costly it will be. If you cannot bear to listen to the "greenies" who have been proved right so many times in the past (if only sceptics would admit it) then for the sake of all people please believe scientific opinion - that is scientists that are genuine biologists, ecologists, and climate experts.

Listen particularly when they talk about "tipping points" or "positive feedback". When there are rapid environmental changes eg Artic ice melting, changes in Ocean currents, inexplicable species die-off, then the dominoes of life are already falling. Should they hit bees, earthworms, sharks, vultures, polar bears, etc then there will be a rapid impoverishment of life on earth, including humans, and there will be little we can do to stop it.

Never was it more true than now - "for ecological disasters to occur and spin out of control, all it takes is for good people to do nothing".