There is a fundamental rule used by economists that is accepted almost without question. That rule is any new process must cost less. If it costs less, then the process should be adopted; if it does not, then it should rejected. I have heard senior respected economists using the argument and to question it is regarded as heresy. People without qualifications as economist or accountants are told that they just do not get it. It is some economists who do not get it; putting the narrow parameters of their profession before more fundamental issues.
An example is the mantra that any new energy source must be cheaper than coal. This puts an impossibly high barrier against many renewable energy sources. You can argue that it is not the economists who are at fault. It is society that must decide that coal is a dirty fuel and demand that cleaner sources are found. One dramatic approach, through regulation, would be to ban coal. Another approach would be to provide subsidy to other energy sources to bring the cost down to less than coal.
As we discuss the options, the economist reminds us again that it must not cost more. Their assurances are that energy need not cost more through a range of measures. This is economics used as politically convenient fudge. If you carry out a real economic analysis you discover that the transition to clean energy will lead to higher energy prices. If the transition is made quickly (in accord with the advice of climate scientists) then energy prices need to rise quickly. This is the economic reality that needs to be reported, debated and then acted upon.
The economists who insist that energy should not cost more are setting a trap for politicians and bring their profession into disrepute.
No comments:
Post a Comment