Leonard Brooks and Michael Grubb Debate - myassignmenthelp.com

Question: Write about theLeonard Brooks and Michael Grubb Debate. Answer: Central Issue in The Communication This debate focuses to expose the analysis on how everyone should agree to accept on maximization of the economic output as a goal and also minimization of environmental damage. This would also include maximization of the output subject to there being improvements at a given rate in defined environment parameters. The debate also focuses on the importance of microeconomics, macroeconomics towards showing energy price-elasticity, greenhouse warming, energy efficiency and economic productivity. Particularly energy efficiency solutions to the green house problem. Grubb offers no hard evidence or analysis to justify his dismissal of macroeconomics evidence or macroeconomic analysis as invalid in the context is also a central point to this debate. The Main Similarities in The Arguments Between Grubb and Brooks Economist Both economist argue that all the economic incentives are towards maximizing marginal productivity of labor and capital as factors of production which are equivalent to the total economic output. Both economist agrees that if consumers are to make right decisions when faced with the energy constraints then it is very important for them to be informed in advances because inadequate knowledge to them acts as a source of energy inefficiency. The Difference in The Argument Between Both Economists Brooks urges that their exist a good correlation between personal disposable income and residential energy expenditure in a way the domestic consumers show ingenuity in finding new forms of energy expenditure when the existing cost fall or income rise while Grubbs urges that correlation is disapproved by the fact that less privileges people spend a larger proportion of income on energy than rich people do. Brooks urge that there is always a time series regression of total residential expenditure on energy upon total UK disposable income, which models effectively the average UK citizen s pattern behavior over time while Grub is countering with a cross section, which would show behavior changes across socioeconomic cohorts at a single point in time. Grubb argues that energy supply/price is not the constraint on economic activity while Brook is against the idea. My Understanding of This Intellectual Debate I think it is obvious that energy efficiency will improve faster under high prices irrespective of the consumers desirability because it really makes economic sense for energy prices to reflect external environments. Some of the fallacies discussed do not meet the consumer satisfaction at all levels of consumption of energy and conserve conducive environment at the same time. Such include fallacy of aggression. References Brooks, L., 1990. The greenhouse effect: the fallacies in the energy efficiency solution, Energy Policy Vol.18, Issue 2 (March), pp.199-201. Brooks, L., 1992. Energy efficiency and economic fallacies a reply, Energy Policy Vol.20, Issue 5 (May), pp.390-392. Grubb, M., 1990. Energy efficiency and economic fallacies, Energy Policy Vol.18, Issue 8 (October), pp.783-785. Grubb, M., 1992. Reply to Brooks, Energy Policy Vol.20, Issue 5 (May), pp.392-393.?Brooks, L., 1993. Energy efficiency fallacies: the debate concluded, Energy Policy Vol.21, Issue 4