Paul Krugman: An Affordable Truth

[cal04]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=1

Maybe I’m naïve, but I’m feeling optimistic about the climate talks starting in Copenhagen on Monday. President Obama now plans to address the conference on its last day, which suggests that the White House expects real progress. It’s also encouraging to see developing countries — including China, the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide — agreeing, at least in principle, that they need to be part of the solution.

Of course, if things go well in Copenhagen, the usual suspects will go wild. We’ll hear cries that the whole notion of global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a vast scientific conspiracy, as demonstrated by stolen e-mail messages that show — well, actually all they show is that scientists are human, but never mind. We’ll also, however, hear cries that climate-change policies will destroy jobs and growth.

The truth, however, is that cutting greenhouse gas emissions is affordable as well as essential. Serious studies say that we can achieve sharp reductions in emissions with only a small impact on the economy’s growth. And the depressed economy is no reason to wait — on the contrary, an agreement in Copenhagen would probably help the economy recover.

Why should you believe that cutting emissions is affordable? First, because financial incentives work.

[dysfunctional press]

1. he's naive.

the majority of the american people won't be willing to make the kinds of cuts that are necessary until it's too late.

and it's probably too late, anyway.

[bertman]

2. He's "naive" and you're "dysfunctional" and "it's prolly too late, anyway."

Keep the faith, baby!!

[FrenchieCat]

3. So it's better to do nothing?

Geeze.....with you, no one can win,
we can only all collectively lose.
What a bummer!

[dysfunctional press]

4. in the parlance of our times- your intellectual dishonesty cup runneth over.

where did i say or even imply anything of the sort?

[FrenchieCat]

6. Why do anything if it's too late? What's the point?

Your quote: "the majority of the american people won't be willing to make the kinds of cuts that are necessary until it's too late.

and it's probably too late, anyway."

[dysfunctional press]

8. the intellectual dishonesty keeps coming- those are your words, and your sentiment, not mine.

i didn't definitively say that it's too late- i said that it probably is. and i certainly didn't say that we shouldn't do anything- i definitely would like to see any unescapable cataclysms staved off until after i'm gone- and even if it's too late to save the species- a concerted effort might hold off the worst of it for an extra few years, or even a decade or more past the predictions. all together, that should be plenty of time to see me thru.

plus- it would/could/should mean jobs, to keep people busy in the mean time, and their minds off their impending doom.

nice try, tho. :hi:

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. What did you expect when your reply #1 was just gloom?

You're trying to make out that the one word 'probably' implies you held out some hope for us.

But you didn't. You stated as a simple opinion that most Americans will not do what is needed. You then added that it's 'probably' too late already. Your view of the future is completely bleak; you view of the present is just mostly bleak.

And then you accuse a DUer of being dishnoest, thus insulting them. You say "i certainly didn't say that we shouldn't do anything", but neither did you specify anything we should do.

[dysfunctional press]

12. your post doesn't specify anyting we should do either....

i didn't realize that i was supposed to include that info in my post until you informed me- what's your excuse...? :shrug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. I didn't accuse a DUer of being 'intellectually dishonest'

when they just pointed out your defeatism. You did.

[dysfunctional press]

18. i didn't post any 'defeatism'- that's why they were being intellectually dishonest.

and i was just pointing that out.

sheesh...:eyes:

[neshanic still]

5. We have a winner.

[Quantess]

7. Oh yeah? What's the prize? (no text)

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dysfunctional press]

14. you have to spend money to save money- and MANY americans are tapped out.

we looked into converting our house to solar, but the upfront costs made it prohibitively expensive.

"A high-mileage/hybrid/electric vehicle is cheaper to run..." but the cost of a new car isn't in the budget of LOTS of people.

"A well-insulated home is more comfortable as well as cheaper to heat and cool" people who rent don't really have any say in the matter, and a landlord isn't likely to incur the costs, if it's just to save the tenants a couple bucks on their monthly bill.

how long have you lived in the u.s...? because you sure don't seem to know too much about the lives and lifestyles of ordinary americans. :shrug:

[Major Hogwash]

16. Solar power is still out of the reach of the average American.

I think a lot of folks would want to save energy and brag about helping the environment, but at this point in time, solar power is still prohibitively too expensive.

[zonkers]

15. Look around. No carpooling and still plenty of SUVs on the road. Styrofoam container usage

still rampant. Habits have not changed quick enough. We are lame ass custodians of the planet.

[AllentownJake]

10. There will be no action this year

The Health Care debate has drained congresses willingness to act and 2010 is an election year.

Nothing will pass till 2011 or 2013.

[Johonny]

13. Bill Kristol said this weekend the talks were a waste of time

and energy, thus since he is always wrong: No doubt there will be progress.