. . . says the Economist. Today’s measures and tools may not be adequate, and a much more radical approach is necessary.
That climate change is happening, that it is very largely man-made and that it is exceedingly dangerous, are all now hard to deny
The Economist counsels innovation (increasing the available options).
But remember three things. One is that spending money to reduce grave risks is reasonable. The second is that some of today’s climate policies cost a lot more than a greatly expanded research portfolio and yield rather less. The subsidies that have created thousands of wind and solar farms have achieved only a little and at great cost. Other green subsidies, such as some of those for biofuels, have done actual harm. There is plenty of money to be saved.
A third is that one of the best measures against climate change raises money. Well-designed carbon prices can boost green power, encourage energy-saving and suppress fossil-fired power much more efficiently than subsidies for renewables. A few brave places have plumped to set such prices through carbon taxes: the latest is Alberta, in Canada.
And the summary:
In short: thinking caps should replace hair shirts, and pragmatism should replace green theology. The climate is changing because of extraordinary inventions like the steam turbine and the internal combustion engine. The best way to cope is to keep inventing.
We definitely do keep inventing as recommended by The Economist, but we seem to not be any closer to mitigating climate change. What am I missing? Is there another variable? Consumption maybe. Maybe its market pricing? More answers please!