The U.S. certainly is at risk of losing a "green race" with China by failing to capitalize on the new market for green technology. We will indeed lose out on opportunities to stimulate the economy by creating green jobs if we do not start acting now. But even winning the race to create green jobs and technology would not be a sufficient solution for the many environmental problems we face today.
That is to say that I don't agree with the notion that the technological innovation is the best way to address climate change. Friedman's thinking is distinctly cornucopian: advances in technology will let us "do more with less," and such improvements in efficiency can mitigate climate change. I, on the other hand, prescribe to a more Neo-Malthusian school of thought (as has most likely become apparent through my blog posts and essay). I do not believe that technology can mitigate climate change on its own, and I do not view environmental issues through an economic or market lens. Instead, I see the answer in the I=PAT equation: we must reduce population, affluence, and our dependence on technological infrastructure severely before we will see any significant reduction of climate change. Certainly, improving the efficiency of our resource use is good for the environment (Biddle's above-ground mining is an excellent idea) and government regulation of producers (as in the example given of enacting producer-responsibility laws in which manufacturers are responsible for collecting and recycling their products) is a necessary step for reducing climate change. These are all good things. But they are simply not enough given the vast amounts of damage that have already been done. If we are to reverse climate change, we will have to do much, much more than improve our technology in some kind of green race with China. We will have to minimize consumption through greatly decreasing population, affluence, and our reliance on technology to counteract the climate change that has already occurred.
No comments:
Post a Comment