Quote:
Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois
I hear you. But that’s like saying someone who is 500 pounds has the same chance to drop 50 than some who is 200 pounds has to drop 20. The obese person needs to learn a completely new lifestyle – everything has to change. And it’ll probably take 1 year of determined effort. The guy looking to get back to 180 needs to cut out the bad habits but otherwise live pretty much the same life. He can probably drop the 20 pounds in 4 months.
Our GDP does not go up unless our emissions go up at the same pace. Simple as that. This is not the case for Japan and most of Europe. I’m not saying it can’t be done, just that the cost and commitment required is much greater.
|
I'd say the cost is actually lower because there are many cheap (or even economically attractive) options available to us that Europe already had fully utilized, but beyond that we sort of agree. We did not meet Kyoto b/c we had zero commitment, both at a national political level and at the individual consumer level.
As a simplistic example, what is the economic cost of fewer people driving large cars/SUV's? I'd argue there is no economic cost (in fact net benefit) in that the end product (miles driven) is constant and accomplished with fewer total resources. An efficient economy would re-allocate those freed up resources to better use - I can't imagine a rational argument that would convince me that accomplishing the same end production with fewer resources is bad for the economy. Consumer tastes may not be as fully met, but this is an entirely different argument than the "it will destroy our economy" argument that is typically tossed out.
On the other hand, Europe really does not have access to the example above. They either drive less or emissions rise with the slowly increasing population and car ownership rate, ie they have a true cost to reduce emissions in this sector.