Brian makes a good point. However, there has been a lot of discussion about using technologies (e.g., injection of CO2 into the wells) that can reduce carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants. This suggests to me there is not a one-to-one lockstep relationship between economic growth and global warming. It's not that simple.
=20 Tony Prato University of Missouri-Columbia ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 4:55 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [SSWG] Denial * 2: Climate Change and Economic Growth =20 I've been following the ECOLOG discussion on climate change "denial science" with great interest. Many of the climate change deniers have much in common with those who deny that there is a conflict between economic growth and environmental protection. For example, both camps of deniers tend to be comprised of hirelings of, or were selected in a process strongly influenced by, "big money" (i.e., pro-growth, typically corporate and anti-regulatory entities). =20 =20 This point would be too obvious to be worth mentioning, except that now we are seeing a fascinating denial dialog developing regarding the relationship of economic growth and climate change. I noticed this at a climate change conference yesterday, where the old CIA Director Woolsey et al., while fully concurring that climate change is upon us, and substantially human-induced, are not yet ready to concede that climate change and other environmental threats are fundamental outcomes of economic growth. =20 =20 (While this is no place to elaborate, I have to at least note that, with a >90% fossil-fueled economy, and ceteris paribus, economic growth simply =3D global warming. And also that, with economic growth - increasing production and consumption of goods and services in the aggregate - prioritized in the domestic policy arena, dealing with climate change means not conservation and frugality but rather wholesale onlining of nuclear, tar sands, mountaintop removing, etc., because, as Woolsey pointed out, renewables such as solar and wind won't come anywhere near the levels our currently fossil-fueled economy needs.) =20 So perhaps we could view "denial science" as lying on a spectrum, where endpoints might be defined either in terms of hardness/softness of science (e.g., physics hard, climate change science medium, ecological economics softish), or else in terms of political economy (e.g., from little to big money at stake). Denial would tend to be motivated pursuant to principals of political economy, and gotten away with in proportion to the softness (or alternatively, complexity) of the science. =20 =20 Brian Czech, Visiting Assistant Professor=20 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center 7054 Haycock Road, Room 411 Falls Church, VA 22043=20 =20 Brian Czech, Ph.D., President Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy SIGN THE POSITION on economic growth at: www.steadystate.org/PositiononEG.html . EMAIL RESPONSE PROBLEMS? Use [EMAIL PROTECTED]
