Chloe Swarbrick writes:
Not only are our climate and environment the obvious foundation for any kind of economy, but the scientific fundamentals for life on earth as we know it are hard science, like gravity.
Economics, on the other hand, is social science. It’s laden with a number of theories that have been shown false in practice many times over. Yet, somehow, it’s economic theory, not the real-world limits of our climate and environment, that is treated as gospel beyond reproach in politics.
Trying to claim environmentalism is a hard science asking to gravity is worth points for effort, but is ludicrous.
Chloe was only born in June 1994, so maybe she has never heard of the 1980 Simon–Ehrlich wager between an economist and environmentalist. The environmentalist said there were hard limits on certain resources so their price would increase over time. They were copper, tin, chromium, nickel and tungsten. Ten years later all five commodities had decreased, not increased in cost.
Peak oil opponents said production would peak at 12.5 billion barrels a year. It is now 29.5 billion. barrels a year. They said it would peak in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s etc etc.
Malthusianism said population growth would exceed the capacity of the planet to feed itself. Totally wrong.
Both economics and environmentalism have uncertainty. We should not see it as a choice between them, but how to have them work together such as with the Emissions Trading Scheme.
The post Chloe on real world limits first appeared on Kiwiblog.
