Wall Street Journal: The fallacy of "green consumerism"

[auroraglacialis]

Well if you ask a financial trader and investor on this, I would expect them to say either "oh no, those electric cars wont make it, it is better to make more regular cars, so invest in that" or "great new opportunity - electric cars, green energy, windmills, lots of money to be made with this new economy" - usually more and more are taking on the second option. I would not expect anyone from the economic sector to say "whatever you do, its not working" or "there are too many people". So this is why I was surprised to see such a statement exactly in such a journal. Which of course is in no way leftist or radical at all (just in case someone missed that irony).

I think the key here and which I wanted to point out is: "[...]a behavioral change, not a technological one" because this is what I keep arguing until I get tired - it is the fundamental conclusion of the prevalence of Jevons Paradox, that technological solutions do not solve a social problem and that overconsumption (that includes overpopulation in a way) is a social problem of a society that believes in infinite growth, infinite human intellect/ability, that to have more is better always. With these paradigms, no technology can solve the ecological crisis because these axioms are regarded as primary and thus stand in the way of applying the technology of any level in a way to solve problems or lower impact.