Right. Wrong. I guess maybe it's all relative.

Who is right? What is right? These kinds of questions... they rarely illicit a clear answer from me. In this case I prefer to address whose approach is the most feasible in the world we live in. In this fast moving world, with so many impending issues, things like blocked Congress, awareness and denial of global issues, slow tedious negotiating can be frustrating. I want action! Action is needed! I understand of course, that taking the best course of action is important, and I would rather take the time to ensure that we're moving forward on a viable path than to move agressively with a option that is more detrimental than effective. However, that being said I still want to see some action. I have grown quite tired and skeptical of words and promises, after all actions speak louder. So, with regards to the perspectives portrayed in the articles I weigh them based on my perception of the feasibility of their implementation in reality, rather than weather or not I think they are inherently right or wrong. (as an aside I do recognize that this all sort of depends on the way you define the use of the word 'right' but I won't get into that now).

Deep down I seem to believe that we need a system overhaul, a detoxification, of the current market system. The world needs to go on the Master Clense if you will. Noemi Klein really put my feelings into words in many ways. Klein's approach to the Climate Change conversation is certainly rousing. The idea that we need to fight Climate Change with economics, but at the same time that the current market system built on the assumption that nature is limitless is inherently detremental to the environment, aligns with some thoughts I had vaguely wandering through my head. Klein's breakdown of the areas and methods of change was inspiring. My only caveat was the ever present question 'how?.' How can we start all of these changes? How? These are not small changes, certainly we can start small somewhere. Klein herself says individual action will never achieve anything, so we need big action, big change. Ok, I'm interested, but how? Maybe Klein has answers that I am not privy to at the moment but thanks to the lack of this information I'll move onto some authors who maybe offer a less succinct definition of the issue areas to be straightened out, but who basically operate within the current system.

The other authors all essentially analyze different aspects and issues of the market (Klein does as well actually I suppose, just she believes in the necessity of large scale reform while the others focus on more specific issues). I would like to take a moment to step back and ask a question 'What is economics?' Where did it come from? What came first, economics or human civilization? Well, it seems to me, and I'm presumptuous to think to most of these authors as well, that economics is something all its own. Humans, particularly western civilization, have applied a multitude of vocabulary words to economics, and have created a huge body of discussion, perception, ideology, etc that economy now lugs around with it. But at the end of the day supply and demand exist and function all on their own. Sort of like music, we heard the notes, gave each pitch a name, but a 'c sharp' by any other name would sound as sweet. This idea is simply fasinating. That being said I'll move on.

Most of the authors find a serious discontinuity in today's economics and climate change. I find that the thread running through all of the pieces is that the general perception of what economy should and needs to do is not in line with achieveing positive steps towards the alleviation of climate change. More specifically that the popular economic view does not account for everything. As I mentioned previously Klein says that the economy assumes that nature is limitless. This idea can also be seen in Daly's article, in his discussion of growth versus development. Then in Rowe's article in his perspective that our obsession with a growing GDP over looks what is actually going on in that growth – the BP oil spill was a boon for economic growth for example. In Dauverne and Lister's excerpt they argue that while eco-business may have some positive implications for climate and environmental issues ultimately the prime motivator for these businesses is profit, and this motivator in light of the current economic views does not work well with positive environmental action. Last but not least Krugman, the author with seemingly the most faith in the economic system believes that the issues lie on the politicians side. Krugman takes the purest view of economics, while the other authors discuss economics within a more political context. Krugman separates the two and highlights the issues in a political context. Essentially he says that economics has the answers we just have to have the right policies to encourage the economic system to move us in the right direction.

So back to the orignial question, who is right? And by my own extension  who is offering a feasible solution? Well... They're all right. And there are hints at solutions, but I can't say that one author offers an idea that would be particularly easy to execute, or an issue that would be particularly easy to solve. Perhaps Krugman, if the right people are working together to manipulate the politics, policy can be changed. Even if poicy is changed however, we are still left with the underlying issues of perception as outlined by Daly and Rowe which will effect policy decisions. Basically I don't have any answers and I don't who does… But maybe if we keep having this conversation and pay attention we'll come arose a really excellent strategy for implementation.