Greenpeace enters the economic policy debate…sort of….
I was interested to see this article on stuff about Greenpeace arguing for a “green” economy. I even considered taking a peak at the report they have put forward by the “German Aerospace Centre’s Institute of Technical Thermodynamics” until I got to this bit at the end of the article
Where the report stumbles is on the financial side, giving no detail on the level of investment required or the economic tradeoffs, making it impossible to judge if the transformation would be worthwhile or simply a pyrrhic environmental victory.
Argent said this was a deliberate choice, with the aim of the report to spark a discussion rather than getting too bogged down in the numbers.
Which basically means this report tells us nothing….
As a side note, as an economist I would replace “financial side” with “opportunity cost” as it it’s not just “money” trade offs that need to be considered…social, environmental, and any other metric that will be part of the cost need to be considered. You can’t just look at non-monetary gains on the benefit side and ignore them on the cost side.
If by enters you mean tries to misinform, then yes.
Harsh! Everybody knows their likely stance and will interpret the report in that light. I haven’t read it but it could have useful information, although obviously not enough to draw any conclusions. At the other end of the spectrum I see plenty of reports by economists that entirely disregard the non-pecuniary costs and benefits of policies and are nonetheless considered a welcome contribution to debates.
Greenpeace et al (the Green Economy) always focus entirely on what is seen and ignore entirely what is not seen