At what cost green?
However, I read The Economist because its ideas are generally wise and sensible. I don't agree with all of them, but even in those cases the magazine's arguments deserve close scrutiny.
For instance, take a statement such as "it will be far more expensive to cut carbon-dioxide emissions radically than to pay the costs of adaptation to the increased temperatures [of global warming]." At first it seems like the reactionary, self-deluding talk of free-marketeers everywhere -- don't worry, there's not a problem.
But then they run the numbers, and you start thinking. Yes, global warming is undeniably happening, but what is the best response?
Dealing with environmental changes and crises is certainly difficult, but which way should we push?