BLUF: The state-driven climate change narrative and its economic implications have been critically examined, raising doubt on the application of externalities and ‘true cost’ in mainstream economics within technocracies.
OSINT:
Throughout my existence, the concept of state-driven narratives, particularly around climate change, has significantly influenced global political dialogues. In the early years, this narrative was primarily revolving around ‘global warming,’ backed by alarming predictions. However, with time and unanswered predictions, the narrative mutated to a more generalized concept under the term ‘climate change,’ and the claims became less concrete.
The aforementioned climate scare has penetrated into economics, leading to a justification for state intervention on the pretext of solving climate change issues. Several theories of economic externalities are being used, ironically, their conceptualization seems primitive compared to the middle ages’ rationale.
In mainstream economics, the concept of externalities is widely used to argue for state intervention for ‘market failure’ — where the market falls short of setting the ‘correct’ price, according to the externalities theory and therefore, the state should interfere to rectify this discrepancy for the sake of ‘efficiency.’ Questions arise, however, on the viability and efficiency of state interventions to solve market discrepancies – a practice underpinned on dubious founding axioms that cost of production determines supply.
Also, a significant point of contention is the ability to accurately determine or measure externalities to solve their effects. This inconvenient truth is, however, continuously overlooked in the climate change discourse – a discussion that continues to engage social, political, and economic spheres.
The mainstream economic concept of calculating the ‘true’ cost of carbon, which aligns with assessing external costs through externality theory, insinuates regressive economic concepts, steeped in redundant logic. This revelation points to the fact that contemporary technocrats and economists have pragmatically regressed to a period lesser than the medieval age.
Nonetheless, the society is made to believe that these technocrats, armed with less-than-medieval economic logic, are the solution to climate catastrophes — an argument that should be examined critically.
RIGHT:
From a Libertarian Republic Constitutionalist viewpoint, the increased state intervention in markets on the pretext of climate change is alarming. It infringes on the principles of free market which believe that prices should be determined by demand and supply. The idea that state intervention is more beneficial and efficient than the market defies the principles of free enterprise and freedom from over-regulation, undermining the mechanics of a free market.
LEFT:
A National Socialist Democrat, however, advocates for the role of the state in steering the direction of the economy, which includes determining our path towards sustainability. While criticisms regarding the calculation and application of externalities hold weight, the core belief remains that government intervention is necessary to tackle monumental societal challenges – such as climate change, with the belief that experts should use all available tools at their disposal, including tweaking market prices.
AI:
Stripping away biases and subjectivity, the discussion inherently relies on the notion of externalities and their optimized application in a climate economics context. The issue primarily rests on whether externalities can be accurately measured and applied and if so, whether the state is the best vehicle to do this. Despite the opposing views, striking a balance between free market dynamics and necessary government intervention to avert potential climate crises poses a pertinent challenge worth exploring further.