Unsubstantiated assertions

I should have known better than to read this article by Joss Garman of Greenpeace (Obama's new fear is a cleaned-up China), but having done so I need to respond to this point:
In Cancun, European leaders were often left on the sidelines, with little new to offer beyond their 20% emission cut, agreed in 2008. This carbon target is now insufficient to make Europe a player in the clean tech markets – a 30% target is the minimum needed to drive private sector investment into the sector.
This assertion seems to be supported by no evidence whatever. Why would a 20% emissions cut not be enough to drive private investment in green tech, but a 30% cut would? For that matter, why would Europe's emissions targets even be a major influence on private investment - presumably if there's a market in the US and China, European companies will still want to capture a share of it?

After 19 years on the Internet, I shouldn't be all that outraged that someone published an unsubstantiated opinion. I don't really even disagree with the basic point about reducing emissions. It's just a shame that Greenpeace couldn't be bothered to marshal any of the good arguments for it.


roof-detective said…
great blog, can you be a follower on mine www.roof-detective.blogspot.com, thanks

Popular posts from this blog

What people want, cognitive goods, models of persuasion and why we avoid important information: the cognitive economics session at the AEA conference

Introducing System 3: How we use our imagination to make choices

Discussion 2 of 3: No spooky action at a distance - a theory of reward