Discover more from Douglass’s Newsletter
2451. Another gap from economics
First, there is very little talk about what to actually do to stop the burning of fossil fuel (and sequester the remainder). Lots of policy ideas but - first gap - they do not stand up to analysis. There is usually the failure to consider scale or to think through the secondary consequences. More jobs use more energy. More solar panels require lots of steel and a new grid. Nuclear power requires ownership by a few corporations, public resistance and time and an irreducible level of contamination. so with all proposed approaches, usually called solutions.
But the second gap ia getting clear - no discussion of the inevitable failure.The hard science is saying no way to stay under 1.5, 2, even 2,5. Bu there is no preparation for failure. This in medicine would be mal-practice. e
Even Bill Gates agrees that we cannot achieve 1.5 - but much of economics keeps looking for business opportunties and how to incentivize investments in climate coping technologies. At COP 26 the pressure was on to create government guarantees, which sounds reasonable-until facing the corruption side of such an approach and the cynicism within the corporations.
As we are mostly aware, efficiency meant creating fragile systems without flexibility. Ancient civilizations stockpiled grain. What do we have? We have allowed the favoring of estraacion over the security of the people..