Here’s good news that may have escaped attention. The environment worldwide is getting better and better, largely because of economic growth, efficiency and innovation. So says the 2008 Index of Leading Environmental Indicators, an annual report on worldwide air and water quality and climate change by the Pacific Research Institute, a San Francisco free-market think tank.
While government regulation plays a “central role” in improving the environment, PRI says, it would be ineffective if it were not for affluence and technological advances. That may be why PRI also warns that imposing drastic measures to curb manmade greenhouse gas emissions could roll back the very economic and technological gains essential to improving the environment.
For example, to reach the global warming alarmists’ goal – an 80-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 – the United States would have to revert to a per-capita emission rate last seen in 1910. Considering the nation’s population will increase to 420 million by 2050, the per-capita rate would have to roll back even more, to a level “not seen in the nation since 1875.”
For perspective, “unless there is a genuine breakthrough in carbon-free electricity,” PRI concludes, “households will not be able to use enough electricity to run a hot-water heater without exceeding” the per-capita emission limit.
The only countries with greenhouse gas emissions that low “are desperately poor nations, such as Haiti and Somalia,” wrote PRI’s senior fellow of environmental studies Steven F. Hayward. “Automobile fuel consumption will have to fall by more than 80 percent.”
“The 80 percent reduction target is unrealistic at any price,” PRI concludes. Given the option of continued innovation and technological advances inherent in economic growth versus the economy-retarding Draconian limits on greenhouse gas emissions, it seems clear to us which one is preferable.
The PRI study underscores the truism that wealthy nations can afford to clean up the environment. Poor nations have their hands full just feeding people. The more money diverted from economic growth – and worse yet, money frittered away on counterproductive curbs to economic growth – the worse the environmental consequences.
Here’s another item that may have escaped attention. U.S. greenhouse gas emissions declined by 1.5 percent in 2006, a first for a non-recession year. PRI says it’s likely the U.S. was the only industrialized nation to experience a reduction.
Whether one believes greenhouse gases pose an environmental threat, the greater point is that the United States is capable of such a reduction because of its economic, technological and innovative advances.
But blindly imposing government mandates without regard to their effect on the economy, technology and innovation will do little except inhibit prosperity and move the nation closer to the model of Haiti and Somalia.
This article also appeared in the following publications:
Valley Morning Star (Harlingen, TX), May 16, 2008
Porterville Recorder (Porterville, CA), May 15, 2008
Jacksonville Journal-Courier (Jacksonville, IL), May 13, 2008
Desert Dispatch (AZ), May 11, 2008
Daily News (Jacksonville, FL), May 9, 2008
Daily Press (Victorville, CA), May 9, 2008
Times-News (Twin Falls, ID), May 8, 2008
Appeal-Democrat (Marysville, CA), May 8, 2008
Clovis News Journal (Clovis, NM), May 8, 2008
TMCnet.com, May 8, 2008
Free Press (Kinston, NC), May 8, 2008
Portales News Tribune (NM), May 8, 2008
Prosperity improves the environment
Pacific Research Institute
Here’s good news that may have escaped attention. The environment worldwide is getting better and better, largely because of economic growth, efficiency and innovation. So says the 2008 Index of Leading Environmental Indicators, an annual report on worldwide air and water quality and climate change by the Pacific Research Institute, a San Francisco free-market think tank.
While government regulation plays a “central role” in improving the environment, PRI says, it would be ineffective if it were not for affluence and technological advances. That may be why PRI also warns that imposing drastic measures to curb manmade greenhouse gas emissions could roll back the very economic and technological gains essential to improving the environment.
For example, to reach the global warming alarmists’ goal – an 80-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 – the United States would have to revert to a per-capita emission rate last seen in 1910. Considering the nation’s population will increase to 420 million by 2050, the per-capita rate would have to roll back even more, to a level “not seen in the nation since 1875.”
For perspective, “unless there is a genuine breakthrough in carbon-free electricity,” PRI concludes, “households will not be able to use enough electricity to run a hot-water heater without exceeding” the per-capita emission limit.
The only countries with greenhouse gas emissions that low “are desperately poor nations, such as Haiti and Somalia,” wrote PRI’s senior fellow of environmental studies Steven F. Hayward. “Automobile fuel consumption will have to fall by more than 80 percent.”
“The 80 percent reduction target is unrealistic at any price,” PRI concludes. Given the option of continued innovation and technological advances inherent in economic growth versus the economy-retarding Draconian limits on greenhouse gas emissions, it seems clear to us which one is preferable.
The PRI study underscores the truism that wealthy nations can afford to clean up the environment. Poor nations have their hands full just feeding people. The more money diverted from economic growth – and worse yet, money frittered away on counterproductive curbs to economic growth – the worse the environmental consequences.
Here’s another item that may have escaped attention. U.S. greenhouse gas emissions declined by 1.5 percent in 2006, a first for a non-recession year. PRI says it’s likely the U.S. was the only industrialized nation to experience a reduction.
Whether one believes greenhouse gases pose an environmental threat, the greater point is that the United States is capable of such a reduction because of its economic, technological and innovative advances.
But blindly imposing government mandates without regard to their effect on the economy, technology and innovation will do little except inhibit prosperity and move the nation closer to the model of Haiti and Somalia.
This article also appeared in the following publications:
Valley Morning Star (Harlingen, TX), May 16, 2008
Porterville Recorder (Porterville, CA), May 15, 2008
Jacksonville Journal-Courier (Jacksonville, IL), May 13, 2008
Desert Dispatch (AZ), May 11, 2008
Daily News (Jacksonville, FL), May 9, 2008
Daily Press (Victorville, CA), May 9, 2008
Times-News (Twin Falls, ID), May 8, 2008
Appeal-Democrat (Marysville, CA), May 8, 2008
Clovis News Journal (Clovis, NM), May 8, 2008
TMCnet.com, May 8, 2008
Free Press (Kinston, NC), May 8, 2008
Portales News Tribune (NM), May 8, 2008
Nothing contained in this blog is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Pacific Research Institute or as an attempt to thwart or aid the passage of any legislation.