Reply to comment

Brendan has said, (over in the sand pit)
"There are those on the "fixed reduction targets" side of this debate who would sacrifice our economic system entirely to reduce carbon emissions and that is simply cutting off your nose to spite your face in my view. "

Thanks, Brendan, I think this is the key to the whole matter of what action to take. Is radical carbon reduction not going to collapse the economy?

I believe the opposite is true: it is the only way that we are going to sustain the economy, in the long term. Yes, it is going to be very challenging indeed, and what a pity that the changeover did not start in the 70's, when the Club of Rome first pointed out that the earth is finite, or in the 80's when Hubbert pointed out that oil is finite, or in the 90's when the awful realisation about GHG's began to hit: because the later we start, the faster we are going to have to run. No matter, we are where we are, so this is where we have to go from, but this is the reason I refuse to keep on debating with denialists.

Next, it is not the Green agenda that is presently collapsing the economy: there is a very real chance that unwise bank lending is going to dothat irrespective of any carbon reduction effect.

If there is a recession, I have sketched here:

how Green Keynesianism could alleviate the recession and produce a phoenix, low-carbon economy.

If we avoid an economic recession in 2008, economists still have to face up to rising fuel prices, partly due to demand from China and India, which may prove eventually to be due in fact to the onset of Peak Oil.

So there are many threats to economic stability,before we get to fixed carbon reduction targets.

I have to quit now, but will return to how radical targets can be met.

Regards

Richard