News

Harvard College Will Ignore Student Magazine Article Echoing Hitler Unless It Faces Complaints, Deming Says

News

Hoekstra Says Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences Is ‘On Stronger Footing’ After Cost-Cutting

News

Housing Day To Be Held Friday After Spring Recess in Break From Tradition

News

Eversource Proposes 13% Increase in Gas Rates This Winter

News

Student Employees Left Out of Work and In the Dark After Harvard’s Diversity Office Closures

Lescroat’s Argument Contradicts Itself

By Daniel P. Robinson

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

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags