...that "economic logic" bears little if any connection to "real world" logic. Economics rates in the same tier as astrology and alchemy in terms of capacity for making accurate predictions.

It used to be a standard joke that economists were no better than the weather forecast but the meterologists got better.

I would buy this argument, except that the government currently excels at subsidies.

Just about every industry gets some federal money already, either through direct subsidy or via government contracts or concessions. So while in essence I agree that subsidies are not the best method of accomplishing changes in the marketplace, unless you are prepared to eliminate all subsidies today, then denying subsidies to certain "green" energy companies smacks of a political decision, not an economic one. How 'bout we swap the farm subsides for green energy ones? A revenue-neutral approach ;}

I will also suggest that the characterization of Al Gore's chosen role seems a bit slanted too. When you are trying to engage people's hearts, you don't speak of dry and complex economic facts----you speak of values. Is global warming a moral issue? Well, to some in the world, maybe, to others, maybe not. The idea of carbon offsets is more of a feel-good issue rather than a proven economic strategy---but does that make it bad? It's rather like recycling: it saves a bit of resources and makes the recycler feel like they're helping the planet. It engages people into the discussion and makes them think about their everyday habits.

But overall I like this diary because we need to get past the "is not/is too" level of argument and talk about what we can and will do about it, if anything. To do that, we must engage on the specifics, like subsidies and the carbon tax.

Or so the fearmongering propaganda of certain immoral free marketeers goes.

What I find astonishing is the conspiracy theories from free market activists, that respecting our environment and being aware of the fact that we operate in a finite system, and that putting tons of poisons in the air from such things as coal burning electric plants, is akin to an attack on the free market system.

Conservationists are trying to ensure that the world economy is maintainable in the future.

There is no definitive measurement concrete and provable in the future, but there are models like the one that predicited the fierceness of Hurricane Katrina. One could scoff before the winds blew that that was just an estimate, but would you have risked staying in New Orleans.

The theory that following the Kyoto Protocol will bankrupt capitalism is a myth that is disproved by Denmark, a country that has cut their CO2 Emissions by approximately 25% at the same time that their economy grew by 50%.

Denmarks Progress Towards Kyoto.

And Then There Was Denmark

But the Danes enjoy steady economic growth, the lowest jobless rate on the continent, a budget surplus and shrinking government debt. And they work 37 hours a week.

Denmark defies every fear mongering axiom that morality free, free market capitalists put forth.

It is a fascinating place, and a fascinating model that has the CATO instutite perplexed and curious.

Then there is Denmark.

As most in Europe, the Danes have high taxes, which take an average of 50% of income.

They have a big welfare state, which provides free public health care, education, child care and job training on top of generous unemployment benefits. Wages are high, with 87% of the workforce belonging to unions. Prices are high, too.

How can a country that pays high taxes, believes in taking care of each other,
has hig welfare rates, and is ranked as one of the freeist countries in the nation, possibly have economic growth while at the same time reducing emissions.

Or have you never heard of Denmark?