The U.S. and Western Europe can point to a remarkable achievement over the past 40 years: significant reductions in air pollution with only a modest effect on our economic growth and prosperity. So, why can't we expect to do the same with greenhouse-gas emissions? Full Story »
Posted by Derek Hawkins
An insane proposal. Hayward shows an incredible disregard for short- and medium-term effects of allowing greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel consumption to continue through the 40 to 60 years he suggests the world wait to act on climate change. He implies the economic effects of trying to prevent it now will be worse than waiting it out, but I want more specifics. Are we looking at worldwide depression if the international community starts in the next 10 years? To his credit, however, I appreciate his forwardness: I'd prefer to hear some one say we should we should simply allow climate change to occur and fight it later than altogether deny it exists. And I can't say I don't recommend this story, as the perspective is rare ... More »
The piece simple ignores the other half of this equation--whether or not it is more expensive to do nothing, and how new green energy development will affect our economy. The author also fails to cite any figures or history to substantiate this tired argument. Probably because they would not support it.
Retrieving Comments
