An error of logic on climate change

Well, this is good news:

Reaching net zero carbon emissions in the UK is likely to be much easier and cheaper than previously thought, and can be designed in such a way as to quickly improve the lives of millions of people, a senior adviser to the government has said.

Chris Stark, the chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change, the UK’s independent statutory adviser, said costs had come down rapidly in recent years, and past estimates that moving to a low-carbon economy would cut trillions from GDP were wrong.

“Overall, the cost is surprisingly low – it’s cheaper than even we thought last year when we made our assessments. Net zero is relatively low-cost across the economy,” he said.

Leave aside whether it needs to be done at all. If it does then it being cheaper is good, if it doesn’t but they’re going to do it anyway then it being cheaper is good.

The error of logic is here:

“But that rests on action now. You can’t sit on your hands and imagine it’s just going to get cheaper by magic.”

Renewable energy prices have plunged in the last decade, putting solar and wind at lower cost than fossil fuels in many countries, spurring a global boom in clean power.

So, how has this been done then? By people out there making cheaper windmills and cheaper solar panels. By, that is, free market competition among capitalist, profit hungry, producers. Sure, we can say that some kickstarting was necessary. We tend to think that not much was and that this has all been done in a grossly expensive manner but, you know, opinions and all that.

But consider the situation now. The claim, at least, is that these solar and wind things are cheaper than fossil. So, the competition remains among those capitalist, profit hungry, producers to continue to gain market share. Which they will do by continuing the technological development of those already profitable - they must be, otherwise the claim of their being cheaper cannot be true - products of theirs.

That is, even if it is true that something had to be done that something has been done. Our correct response now is exactly to sit on our hands because it is all going to get ever cheaper. The magic being that combination of the capitalist lust for profits combined with the competition of free markets.

Or, as we might put it, exactly the success claimed by those who call for intervention means the end of the need for the intervention. We’ve already solved the problem, we’re done.

Oh, and as to our claim that this has all been done too expensively. Back in the 1990s people like Bjorn Lomborg were pointing out that solar was getting cheaper at 20% a year and that that, by the 2020s, would mean it was cheaper than fossil fuels and so the problem would be solved. Here we are, 2020s, the claim is that solar is cheaper and the problem is well solved. We’ve spent a fortune getting here and arguably we needed to spend nothing at all to do so. Because that technological trend, the 20% pa reduction in the price of solar, hasn’t changed, not so as we’ve been shown at least, as a result of all that spending.

Why not stop making that mistake and just leave it to that capitalist free marketry that actually has been solving the problem so far?