Most of the really pro-free market guys say they don't believe in global warming, despite the science. Why is this? They seem to like science when it produces profitable technology, but not in this case. Why? I suspect it's because if they admit that global warming is real, that it is caused by human activity, and that it will cause massive problems very soon, their ideology provides no solutions.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that global warming is real, human caused and soon to do great damage. What is the free market solution to this? If clean energy doesn't become more profitable than fossil fuels in time to prevent catastrophe, how is the market going to address this problem? How do you fix this without state intervention?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This image was linked on reddit a while ago.
The state already intervenes, and the effects of it are felt in food production, manufacturing, energy production, etc...
I'd be interested to know if the pro-free market guys have taken that into account or if they took for granted, or were ignorant about, the amount of money the government already uses to intervene.
Post a Comment