« The Spoils of Success for the Natural Products Industry | Main | The Corporate Climate Revolution Will Be Televised »

March 18, 2007



The Atlantic article is currently available at this blog, no doubt under fair use for educational purposes:

robert veach

the article stated:
"Lash and Wellington go on to describe the six types of risk: regulatory risk"
Lets all write our government leaders to change net metering laws so that we can all get solar on our roofs and be able to reap the energy benefits.
please visit for more info:


I think it goes a little deeper than all the above. This society needs to face fundamental questions about itself, though it may not matter in the end. If communism fell because a society without incentives doesn't work, then capitalism faces a similar fate because unfettered exploitation of the Earth has been shown to be killing the planet.

And there is still the moral question of what we're doing to the legacy to our children, beyond merely the economic. If the economy isn't benefitting our children, then what's the point? And are we willing to role the dice to see if climate change will eventually damage our ability to grow food to feed our children? And if we don't care about those questions, then what does that say about our society?

We'll spend billions on a rover to Mars to search for a spec of life, but kill most of the species on this planet and re-arrange its ecosystems? Sorry, that to me is a more important subject than planning for a shipping port on the Arctic Circle. Because that falls right in line with the short-sighted form of capitalism that got us in this situation. Call me a treehugger, but in this era of calls for ethics from business, this is the central question.

Capitalism and all businesspeople with children and/or a conscience, it's your moment of truth.

peter lockhart

Bogman has the issue by the throat, what is the legacy we're leaving,... are things better or worse than what we inherited... in human terms the answer may well be yes... more people living longer higher quality lives... However on any other dimension it is hard to see past the planet and other living creatures paying a terrible price for our outcomes.

Mankind needs to develop a contingency plan to get off this rock.But in the meantime ....

Al Gore is right on one point, this is a morale issue.. and has not much to do with economics, social upheaval, displaced refugees, droughts or snow melt. These are all outcomes of our collective behaviour.

If the debate resolves to who will be the winners and losers and what will happen to the economics it will leave us with the same level of thinking that got to this point in the first place...

I read recently that the 'weather is Earth's attempt to balance temperature and pressure' .

Taking the economist line of carbon trading to balance the flows of money and providing wealthy folks the ability to purchase pollution permits does address the central question. What are we collectively to do about what is going on...by definition we need to change what we're doing not purchasing permits or calculating economic risks.

Richy Rich

At http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1480669.ece there is an interview with scientist Mark Lynas, whose new book, "Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet" was published March 19.
He describes our climate future - one degree at a time (Celsius)!! Two degrees is the threshold we must not cross or else suffer runaway conditions. To avoid the 2 degree threshold, we must reduce GHG emissions by 60% over the next 10 years!! Is that achievable?? If not, here's what will subsequently happen, all within a relatively short timeframe. I also refer you to a recent interview with James Lovelock, who mentions that Stanford scientists are looking to buy real estate in northern Canada to escape the harshest effects of climate change.
(see Lovelock at http://environment.guardian.co.uk/ethicalliving/story/0,,2034370,00.html )

The comments to this entry are closed.