Environmental Economics

Or rather, environmental non-economics. Arlo Brady today:

And then there is the observation that products that are more environmentally friendly tend to have used (and use) fewer resources than their conventional counterparts, and should therefore be cheaper to buy or run.

If this were in fact true than we'd all be environmentalists. It's just that a quick look around the world tells us that environmentally friendly products (at least those that call themselves such) are more expensive than conventionally produced items.

Solar power, windmills, are still vastly more expensive than fossil fuel generation, even if you include the costs of the CO2 emissions. Organic food does indeed cost more to produce than conventionally farmed. Recycling does cost more than landfill (the time spent sorting to recycle costs more than the rest of the system put together).

Given that all of this is true, that many so called environmentally friendly products do cost more than conventionally produced, if we accept the second part of the logic then we'll have to assume that they also consume more resources.

Which really isn't the point at all, is it?

Actions: Print this article   |   Email to a friend   |   Permalink   |   Comments (1)

Post this entry to:   del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Advertisement

Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine

Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms

Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP

All Articles and Content Copyright ©2008 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved