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.


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

Popular posts from this blog

Is bad news for the Treasury good for the private sector?

What is the difference between cognitive economics and behavioural finance?

Dead rats and dopamine - a new publication