The economy and the Green argument

kabayiri

Just occasionally, you hear a snippet on a debate program which makes you think. Most of these debates are the usual old rhetoric statements.

The debate was about being Green and each party was doing it's utmost to mostly talk about how worthy they were.

A point was then made. If you factor in the services and goods production work we have exported in recent decades, then we aren't really the Green economy the politicians would like us to be portrayed as.

Does this mean that the economics of being Green don't make sense at a national level? Should the argument soley be centred on environmental impact?

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

Just occasionally, you hear a snippet on a debate program which makes you think. Most of these debates are the usual old rhetoric statements.

The debate was about being Green and each party was doing it's utmost to mostly talk about how worthy they were.

A point was then made. If you factor in the services and goods production work we have exported in recent decades, then we aren't really the Green economy the politicians would like us to be portrayed as.

Does this mean that the economics of being Green don't make sense at a national level? Should the argument soley be centred on environmental impact?

It's why internationally traded carbon emissions permits make sense as you can include a measure of Greenness into the costs of production. Places that are able to produce something with less environmental impact would have a cost advantage over those who can't.

Cyberman60

The Greens are fruitcakes.

Generali

Cyberman60 wrote: »

The Greens are fruitcakes.

Oh completely. The Euros manifesto was a tour de force of bonkerishness.

kabayiri

Cyberman60 wrote: »

The Greens are fruitcakes.

The Green agenda to me is a bit like the War on Terror or the Political Correctness du Jour.

Each party claims to be the ones with the answer. When you question this they just redefine the problem.

The Green party is something else again!

They have destroyed by liking for fruit cake frankly.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

It's why internationally traded carbon emissions permits make sense as you can include a measure of Greenness into the costs of production. Places that are able to produce something with less environmental impact would have a cost advantage over those who can't.

It would be a start if Car Brochures had Shipping Miles published alongside their CO2 figures.

All of a sudden that Prius doesn't look so saintly when you work out where the various materials that go into it's batteries come from; where they are processed etc.

Apparently, the UK's biggest export by volume is fresh air, in all these container ships. There's a PR opportunity right there. "UK - providing fresh air to the world for decades".

wotsthat

kabayiri wrote: »

Each party claims to be the ones with the answer. When you question this they just redefine the problem.

It's because politicians and business have hijacked words like 'green' and 'eco' and can redefine them to meet their needs. The public are eager sponsors of this because we all like to hear good things about our bad habits.

In much the same way we support increased taxes (for other people of course) I see the green agenda heading in the same direction.

padington

The true of cost of our products have often not been priced into our market place and we are often using our capital (bio diversity) as income.

Feel free to call them the 'green' arguement if you want, I call it good business sense to address these two problems.

It's damning that the main 'business' centred parties fail to see the big picture and act occordingly.

CLAPTON

padington wrote: »

The true of cost of our products have often not been priced into our market place and we are often using our capital (bio diversity) as income.

Feel free to call them the 'green' arguement if you want, I call it good business sense to address these two problems.

It's damning that the main 'business' centred parties fail to see the big picture and act occordingly.

what is the true cost of our policies ?: in green methodology it is anything you want it to be: it has no basis in either science or economics

lets take an example
without man made global warming every climate scientist would agree that the future of the world would have been a vast ice age and world wide drought.

so on the pro global warming balance sheet should be 5,000 years of total global production.

oddly that never appears and all we have are made up numbers of what might or might not happen if global warming continues

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

what is the true cost of our policies ?: in green methodology it is anything you want it to be: it has no basis in either science or economics

lets take an example
without man made global warming every climate scientist would agree that the future of the world would have been a vast ice age and world wide drought.

so on the pro global warming balance sheet should be 5,000 years of total global production.

oddly that never appears and all we have are made up numbers of what might or might not happen if global warming continues

The problem is that if Global Warming or something else for that matter renders the Earth uninhabitable then the income drops to nil. The equity part of the balance sheet has nil value as does the income on the income statement.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

The problem is that if Global Warming or something else for that matter renders the Earth uninhabitable then the income drops to nil. The equity part of the balance sheet has nil value as does the income on the income statement.

the 'green' costing issue is the faux adding of huge costs to 'doing nothing' or 'waiting' option to justify ridiculous taxes (levies) right now.