“We can’t have stronger environmental laws, it hurts business too much and they will just flee overseas, therefore we can’t have stronger environmental lows.” We’ve all heard this arguement, so is it true?
No, its not, says some economists. The article is fairly hardcore economics, so I’ll just quote the last page:
“Conclusion – Pro-environmental nations experience better economic outcomes on several measures, controlling for other factors, than nations with lax environmental policies. These findings run counter to a theme articulated by many scholars of globalization: that nations must cater to the demands of industry and global capital regarding environmental and social policy or be punished by the flight of capital and production. Most countries are augmenting their environmental protection laws, and doing so does not appear to prompt the flight of capital or other adverse economic effects.”
If I was to elope with any periodical, it’d be the London Review of Books. Here’s an X000 word esay on climate change, yeah, yeah, you’ve read enough on that this year to last a tedious lifetime… but this has not a word wasted, it’s a precise and clear summary of the science, the uncertainty, the politics and why not much is being done. Dr Jez recommends you read it. After all, its Monday, and you don’t actually want to do any work, do you?
And as for what to do about it, Dr Jez recommends:
- eat less meat
- drive less
- fly less
- get your electricity from Meridian
- and with all the money you’ve saved from not doing things, buy a sunny, insulated, warm house
Instead, you probably want to stick captions on cats. Why? Coz aliens asked us to: