(the exact link is:
- Current (neo-classical) economics is based on false premises.
- These false premises include this important premise: That nature is irrelevant to economic growth (and that natural resources are boundless).
Because the irrelevance of nature is a premise of Economic Theory, it is not surprising that it pops up as an outcome of Economic Theory. Given the type of models they work with, economists have to claim that fighting global warming is economically inviable. And when they do so, it’s a tautology – what they are actually saying is: “since we assume that nature is irrelevant to Economics, no action to save natural reasorces could possibly be cost-beneficial”. A claim which is, of course, absurd.