|
by Jerome a Paris
I don't know what's most striking: the claim the Economist refers to, the fact that it's actually mentioned by the article, or the fact that it's mentioned with so little prominence. In other words, this is like the articles about asset bubbles 4 years ago: there's enough publicly available information out there that there is little doubt about the underlying reality, the newspapers will be able to claim that they did cover the topic appropriately, and the topic can safely continue to be ignored by politicians, pundits and deciders. The topic is dismissed and neutralised and no policy conclusions need to be reached - and in particular no change to the system - and to the profits made by the incumbents and insiders need to be made. Funnily enough:
If any action or event is going to save the world from catastrophe, it's much more likely that fossil fuel scarcity will reduce carbon emissions, by reducing economic "growth" as we know it (and, possibly, but we can't put our hopes on this, because there simply won't be enough carbon around to burn). The good news is that the solutions to both problems (climate change and resource scarcity) are pretty much the same: energy efficiency, renewables, a re-definition of what economic propserity is. The bad news is that there's still a large consensus amongst serious people to do as little as possible to actually implement these.
|
Menu
. Home
. About . Contact . New User Guide . FAQ . ET Editorial Guidelines . Search . Search (Google) Login
|
||
|
The Economist acknowledges that the IEA acknowledges peak oil | 6 comments (6 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
The Economist acknowledges that the IEA acknowledges peak oil | 6 comments (6 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
| ||||
| ||||