Nick Smith 40% Climate Change pointless fiscal concern

Nick Smith must be worried. A man who drives an electric car must have some idea that energy is in short supply. He must – at this stage – understand that economic activity is limited by the amount of energy available (it’s an immutable law of thermodynamics, sadly untaught in economics) and that we are up at the wall.

Why then, does he wail about the fiscal imposition of addressing climate change? 40% is still inadequate in physical terms, and it is the physical planet our kids will inherit, not a GDP, not wealth, only the physical planet. If it is degraded, and (worse) they have less energy options to address the problem, then our legacy is a negative. In that light, worrying about whether the cost of electricity or fuel will rise is a red herring. Even disingenuous. Anything in short supply rises in price, if, of course, the system hold together enough for ‘price’ to be a coherent concept. Blaming that on environmentalists was a predictable offload, but unfair, totally unfair. The folk who are gaining by this denial, are the ones who should be put in the spotlight. The ones who should pay. Rightly, the cost of oil should increase. Ultimately, we failed to cost in environmental impacts, both pollutive and extractive. Cost them in properly, and of course you get less profit. To argue for more, is to champion greed. No more, no less.

I hope a Claire Trevett or a Laidlaw really goes for this. Don’t hold your breath. Read the last blog below, for a wider understanding of where we really are.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: