February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28            
Blog powered by Typepad

« Is there a unique LSE school of political economy? | Main | Entrepreneur in Sneakers: RIP Arnold "Red" Auerbach »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

It amazes me that politicians in the United States and Europe demand its citizens to use less energy, because that would 'help' the environment. It would seem to me, that if you really want to 'help' the environment, it is best to reduce pollution in those places where it is most prevalent, like China, India and Russia. Now wouldn't the consequence of reduced energy demand in the Western World, put downward pressure on global energy prices? But what happens when energy prices fall in the those countries which have a lot of pollution? To me, it would seem that industrialists are less incited then to implement energy-efficient manufacturing processes.

What politicians thus actually should be saying is that we should use more energy, because that will put upward pressure on global energy prices. With rising energy prices, those industrialists in the polluted countries -will- have an incentive to implement energy-efficient processes.

You do not need Kyoto to create a better environment, you only have to turn on your air conditioner. :)

It seems to me that Kuznet implies that there is a net benefit to the pollution because of the growth the country experiences. In these examples i see little reward for the mass pollution, as well as in the 35 most polluted places. I would rather look as a possible causation being the low level protection for property rights in these countries.

There is a mining town in the west of Tasmania where sulphurous fumes from copper processing created a lunar landscape for some miles around the works.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/tasmania/queenstown/2005/02/17/1108500205909.html

It is a remarkable sight but it is a curiosity rather than an ecological disaster because it is surrounded by a vast expanse of forest and terrain that is too rugged and remote to be used for commercial purposes, apart from mining.

Hey there :)

Just wanted to let you know that I think this blog is GREAT, and that you're a fantastic writer/blogger/economist??

You've really got me back into Economics, and enjoying it again, after having it KILLED (over and over again!) by my Economics teacher this year!!

You're great! Love the blog, can't wait for more entrys :)

Tiffany

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books