Looks like a well thot out piece. Good points.
He is even critical of conservatives, critical even on underlying presuppositions of his field, critical of the Casanova hand among the wealthy conservative spin on climategate, critical it seems of the invisible hand solving the problem.
One problem, though, when it comes to a solution, what does he suggest?
Putting in place a carbon credit market regimen by legislation.
But isn't a 'market system', essentially the one he is criticising, what has given us the global warming situation in the first place, for which he now has another market solution?
Hasn't a 'market' in carbon credits already shown its flawed face?
Isn't booming Asia, industrially/environmentally/MILITARILY, our 'invisible' hand, to a great extent, at work? ('At play', really, is a better term, in that it has been too haphazard, childish, naive, whimsical, blithe, a history to be called 'work'.)
What I suggest, and it is not going to work here, is an old tool of government:
police power; the power to say that certain things, or certain polluting activities in certain measures, will not be permitted, on penalty of such and such.
Call it THE VISIBLE HAND.
But that solution has always been anathema to economic thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment