"System change is now inevitable. Either because we do something about it, or because we will be hit by climate change. '...

"We need to develop economic models that are fit for purpose. The current economic frameworks, the ones that dominate our governments, these frameworks... the current economic frameworks, the neoclassical, the market frameworks, can deal with small changes. It can tell you the difference, if a sock company puts up the price of socks, what the demand for socks will be. It cannot tell you about the sorts of system level changes we are talking about here. We would not use an understanding of laminar flow in fluid dynamics to understand turbulent flow. So why is it we are using marginal economics, small incremental change economics, to understand system level changes?"

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Thank you for emitting CFCs

On the globalchange list, Tom Adams points to a very interesting essay about ozone hole skepticism.

1 comment:

plum said...

I read that essay and just had to shake my head in disappointment at how easily that strategy can be applied in other fields.

The highlight (or lowlight?) was the exchange between Doolittle and Rivers in the House hearing. With the possible exception of one word ("ban"), you could listen to that and think they were talking about global warming.