"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?"

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

What's wrong with this picture?

Regular readers will understand the nature of the problem here.

(quicktime download)

For details, go to the Media Matters site.

1 comment:

Aaron said...

I would like to offer 4 things that might be wrong with that picture.
1) Their salary depends on (network TV) ads by the energy and auto industries?
2) They did not take a serious science or math course in school? (You mean an audition for morning talk show host does not include a few questions on radiation physics or the carbon cycle? And, still we trust these people to ramble-on in front of our young?)

3) It is 1984, and Big Brother proves his power by having people recite nonsense? (Big Brother being a euphemism for negotiators from the US, Saudi Arabia, and Russia that removed ‘alarmist” content from the IPCC reports after the “scientific” writing had been completed.)

4) Lord Voldemort has taken over all the US federal agencies related to science and the environment and we are all waiting for Harry Potter to come save us?

Since this blog has a theme of economics/follow the money, I pick option 1. On the other hand J. K. Rowling got rich, so I cannot rule out option 4.