Lescroat’s Argument Contradicts Itself

To the editors:



In her column “In the Hot Seat” (Oct. 31), Justine R. Lescroart ’09 argues that we can reduce greenhouse emissions without hurting our economy, claiming that more energy-efficient technology will pay for itself. However, if that were true, companies and consumers would already be choosing to use clean energy technologies for the lower cost. Putting a government-mandated cap on our carbon emissions is only necessary because reducing emissions has a cost that most people feel outweighs the benefits.

Furthermore, that point runs contrary to the rest of her column, in which she claims that advances in energy-saving technology are not enough to stop global warming. The expert she quotes to make her dubious economic argument says, “The savings in energy will pay for the cost of technology that’s needed to reduce energy consumption.” This is an argument in favor of focusing on technological advancement, rather than an emissions cap, but she tries to use the quote to argue the opposite.



DANIEL P. ROBINSON ’10

Cambridge, MA

October 31, 2007