The Paradoxically Myopic Economist

It is common in the discourses of mainstream media, and even more so on Bay Street, to talk about economic stability as if it were the be-all-and-end-all of societal harmony and human existence.  Time after time, social and environmental "threats" are dismissed in terms of lost dollars or jobs in our economy.  To be fair, employment is extremely important, and people will almost always act in their own best interests, which in our 21st Century world means gaining financial security for our families above nearly all else.  However, also in this complex 21st Century world, we face challenges that should be trumping economic strength, and yet are not.  The environment, more than anything right now, is such an issue.

Of course, I am not suggesting that we all burn our possessions and live in mud huts to save the Earth, far from it.  However, we seem unwilling as a population to make even small compromises in our already vast and (frankly) excessive wealth to make the necessary progress in climate change and pollution to save the Earth and potentially countless human lives.  This was demonstrated clearly through Canadians' outright rejection of the carbon tax proposed by the Liberals, as well as countless other individual excesses which we seem unwilling to give up (have you seen how many people are still driving alone on the DVP? Jeebus!).  Perhaps it is lack of education on the real effects of climate change, or maybe it is apathy, or even nihilism, but in any case, the necessary reaction (although substantial from some) is still generally lacking.  The question I pose to all you economists then is, When the glaciers melt and polar icecaps sink into the sea, major seaside cities are underwater and millions are displaced, when famine is widespread and unquenchable drought is as common in summer as smog warnings in Toronto, does anybody care what our GDP is? Will we be paying attention to how much the TSX fell today? What about minimum wage?

Aside from whether you think this is mere alarmism or not (trust me, none of this is out of reach, and maybe not even far away) the point is that eocnomists (and by that I mean anyone who uses the economy like a punchline, yes you Mr Harper) have tended to view movements like environmentalism as special interests who will myopically sacrifice jobs and economic value, when truly, without REAL action on climate change and pollution in the coming future, we may face a world where economies are either irrelevant or even non-existent, and when jobs are a luxury rather than the norm.  Perhaps it's time for a new type of economic thought.