Planetizen - Urban Planning News, Jobs, and Education

Who Will Win the Carbon Neutral Economy?

The fossil fuel industry has convinced the public that aggressive carbon reduction will harm the economy. Au contraire. The carbon reduction leader will secure its place at the top of the global economy, argues UrbDeZine Editor Bill Adams.
March 11, 2015, 6am PDT | wadams92101
Share Tweet LinkedIn Email Comments

Somethings, in hindsight, are obvious, though not so much before. The beneficial impact on the economy of reducing carbon will be the next such thing, opines Bill Adams, a San Diego land use attorney and editor of UrbDeZine. The fossil fuel industry has managed to convince the country that the harm to their interests from conversion to clean energy will be a sacrifice shared by all. In fact, opines Adams, conversion to carbon neutral energy is inevitable. It is inevitable because the alternative is catastrophic for the planet. And because it is inevitable, so is conversion to carbon neutral energy sources.  

Accordingly, the boom in carbon reduction technology is inevitable—it has already begun but will continue to grow exponentially. Thus, failing to act quickly and robustly in supporting carbon neutral technology will cause the United States to miss the opportunity to fully share in the economic benefits that will be bestowed on the technological leaders of the inevitable conversion. Adams asserts: 

While the U.S. is still one of the top investors in carbon neutral energy, China is number one. Coupled with it’s manufacturing prowess, China stands poised to make the U.S. a customer rather than a producer or patent holder, while congress and state legislators do the bidding of the fossil fuel industry. Even some fossil fuel companies recognize the inevitability of addressing climate change, albeit in a Machiavellian manner: For example, ExxonMobile is promoting and investing in geo-engineering the climate by pumping sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere, at the same time it funds climate change skepticism. However, geo-engineering is widely considered a far more risky and inferior way to deal with climate change than carbon reduction. Thus, ExxonMobile hopes to profit by sinking the ship while owning the lifeboats.

Adams concludes: 

This battle between Old and New, is not greens vs. greenbacks. It’s greens and new greenbacks, on the one side vs. old greenbacks, on the other side. The earth and economic growth are on the same side.

Full Story:
Published on Sunday, March 8, 2015 in UrbDeZine
Share Tweet LinkedIn Email