On the matter of climate change

[aesmael]

It has long confused and bothered me that in the question of how to respond to climate change one of the major governmental concerns appears to be "How can we ensure that industries like coal remain profitable?" As concerns go it seems almost nonsensical, since in order to respond effectively to the problem the coal and other industries need to cease existing in their present form - an effective response cannot I think include 'energy producing industries continue to exist profitably as they are'. If they do want to keep existing as companies they probably should be investing in changing what they do and how.

Perhaps this is because 'growing less than fast is a sign of a bad economy' has never made sense to me as a goal either. It seems like a whole lot of people pretending the planet's resources are infinite and putting off any problems to be dealt with in some indefinite 'later'. Any economic focus other than a sustainable, non-destructive one has always struck me as misguided.

I was watching Lateline earlier tonight and the businessperson interviewed seemed much more charismatic than the politicians and political analysts. Maybe that explains this.

Comments

[twistyjesse.livejournal.com]

sustainable economics? sounds like treason to me.

[infinitely-late.livejournal.com]

Mostly, I think they're all hoping that it'll be somebody else's problem, and in the meantime they're running a business here. Trouble with a capitalist society: it is not designed to promote altruistic actions, ie. ones which are not of immediate benefit to the individual, and may even *gasp* have a detrimental effect on their finances.