Krugman and weak logic.
#3005
Krugman in the NYT
He has a major effect on professional opinion so It’s important to criticize if he s wrong. The article is characterized by a kind of optimistic calm, soporific in my view, and the appearance of logic. But false. The article is long so only a few excerpts. my comments in […].
Environmental experts I follow believe that [BBB] is a very big deal, which, if successfully implemented [there is no plan at scale for how to do this, the cost, the time frame, and the availability of the metals to do it . If implemented would use a lot of energy to manufacture and run] will greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. [how much is greatly? A great reduction will. not stop temperature rise. He relies on the following optimistic graph projections: Krugman in the NYT
He has a major effect on professional opinion so Its important to criticize if he s wrong. The article is characterized by a kind of optimistic calm, soporific in my view, and the appearance of logic. But false. The article is long so only a few excerpts.
Environmental experts I follow believe that it’s [BBB]a very big deal, which, if successfully implemented [there is no plan at scale for how to do this, the cost, the time frame and the availability of the metals to do it and that would be implemented uses a lot of energy to manufacture and to run] will greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. [how much is greatly? A great reduction will. not stop temperature rise. He relieso the following optimistic graph projections:
The biggest factor making this kind of climate initiative possible, after so many years of inaction, is the spectacular technological progress in renewable energy that has taken place since 2009 or so.[ cost, feasibility of mining materials and timing of scale are ignored.]
Above all, real G.D.P. says nothing about how stuff is produced. A kilowatt-hour of electricity counts the same whether it was generated by burning coal or wind power, but the environmental impact is completely different. [ the use of "completely" fudges the argument. It is not so different since lots of coal and oil need to be used to produce those turbines and hook them to a grid that does not yet exist].
As a result, there’s no reason a growing economy must place an increasing burden on the environment. [just does not logically follow. }
So there is no necessary relationship between economic growth and the burden we place on the environment.
But at higher levels of development, delinking growth from environmental impact isn’t just possible in principle but something that happens a lot in practice.
How did Britain do that? Part of the answer is that over time the British economy switched from relying on coal to relying on hydrocarbons, which when burned generate less carbon dioxide
[How much less, about half, but we need zero since any raises temperature.]
To combine rising living standards with an improving environment, we need policies that encourage the use of technologies that cause less environmental damage.[ combining "improving environment" with "less environmental damage."]
He pauses with
Strange to say, however, at this precise moment — the most hopeful moment for the environment, as far as I can tell, in decades — my inbox has been filling up with woeful claims that environmental protection is incompatible with economic growth.
The biggest factor making this kind of climate initiative possible, after so many years of inaction, is the spectacular technological progress in renewable energy that has taken place since 2009 or so.[ cost, feasibility of mining materials and timing of scale need to be considered.]
Above all, real G.D.P. says nothing about how stuff is produced. A kilowatt-hour of electricity counts the same whether it was generated by burning coal or wind power, but the environmental impact is completely different. [ the use of "completely" fudges the argument. It is not so different since lots of coal and oil need to be used to produce those turbines and hook them to a grid that does not yet exist].
As a result, there’s no reason a growing economy must place an increasing burden on the environment. [just does not logically follow. }
So there is no necessary relationship between economic growth and the burden we place on the environment.
But at higher levels of development, delinking growth from environmental impact isn’t just possible in principle but something that happens a lot in practice.
How did Britain do that? Part of the answer is that over time the British economy switched from relying on coal to relying on hydrocarbons, which when burned generate less carbon dioxide
[How much less, about half, but we need zero since any raises temperature.]
To combine rising living standards with an improving environment, we need policies that encourage the use of technologies that cause less environmental damage.[ combining "improving environment" with "less environmental damage."]
He pauses with
Strange to say, however, at this precise moment — the most hopeful moment for the environment, as far as I can tell, in decades — my inbox has been filling up with woeful claims that environmental protection is incompatible with economic growth.
[The whole article is so lacking in good faith, I am not going to continue.