[carapace]

But isn't that just a (vast) instance of the "Broken Window" fallacy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

> The parable of the broken window was introduced by French economist Frédéric Bastiat in his 1850 essay "Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas" ("That Which We See and That Which We Do Not See") to illustrate why destruction, and the money spent to recover from destruction, is not actually a net benefit to society.

[philipkglass]

It would be an example if the parent advocated for breakage. But the historical breakage is vast already. It's still ongoing. Parent is just pointing out that it's going to be a good time for glaziers.

[tuatoru]

No.

A lot of the assets that will be replaced (vehicles, power plants, etc.) would have been replaced anyway, because they are or soon will be worn out. That's just business as usual.

The difference is that instead of being replaced with carbon-emitting tech, they will be replaced with modern low emission technology. That's just Schumpeter's gale of creative destruction at work.

[lbarrow]

Sure, but the broken window fallacy basically just serves to illustrate that there are opportunity costs when we spend resources on fixing something. The benefits we get from these investments are still real, they're just less than what we might have gotten otherwise.

To put it another way - climate change is sure to be a disaster, but if we get better recycling technology, more efficient cars, pollution-free power generation and other improvements as part of the work of fighting it, that's at least a silver lining.