Green Jobs Destroy Good Jobs

|

Green jobs take lots of greenbacks

An op/ed in today's Investors Business Daily is reporting that yet more studies that show that subsidizing "green" jobs destroys good jobs:

A Spanish economics professor said attempts by his country to create a green economy would fail. Now a Spanish government report confirms his findings, blunting claims that the professor's report was biased.

The professor, Gabriel Calzada Alvarez of Juan Carlos University in Madrid, produced a 41-page study last year on the European experiment of going full bore on the conservation front. He found that "the Spanish/EU-style 'green jobs' agenda now being promoted in the U.S. in fact destroys jobs."

For every green job created by the Spanish government, Alvarez found that 2.2 jobs were destroyed elsewhere in the economy because resources were directed politically and not rationally, as in a market economy.

"The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices," the professor told the press.

Alvarez's findings, of course, were rejected by the environmental left, which tried to smear him as a stooge of the oil industry.

But inconveniently for the eco-conscious, his results have been backed up by Carlo Stagnaro and Luciano Lavecchia, a couple of researchers from the Italian think tank Istituto Bruno Leoni.

They found that in Italy, the losses were worse than they were in Spain: Each green job cost 6.9 jobs in the industrial sector and 4.8 jobs across the entire economy.

"Green investments are an ineffective policy for job creation," they say in their report. Despite the other merits of investments in new energy, "to the extent that the 'green deal' is aimed at creating employment or purported as anti-crisis or stimulus policy, it is a wrong policy choice."

Even more inconvenient for the environmental left is a study by the Spanish government. This leaked document supports the Alvarez report. The green lobby can't claim bias in this analysis because the Zapatero administration that compiled it is a socialist government that sees windmills when more rational people see dragons.

If you're interested in more info, see also my The Green Jobs Delusion and my post on the Spanish solar power bust.

Go here for the whole op/ed.

Advertisement

NEXT: L.A. Loses Deep-Fryer, 45 Percent of Items Purchased With Taxpayer Funds

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Making energy more expensive —> Reduced productivity —> Job losses.

    Who’s a thunk that?

    1. Not only that, but the historical correlation between increases in real wages and productivity is almost 1:1.

      If the Obama administration were pursuing a deliberate policy of impoverishing the nation, they could hardly do better than their current policies.

      1. “If the Obama administration were pursuing a deliberate policy of impoverishing the nation, they could hardly do better than their current policies”

        The Obama adminisration is pursuing a deliberate policy of redistributing wealth from the legitimate owners of it to all of their favored constituency groups.

        Impoverishing the nation is just a usefull side effect. The worse things get, the more they’ll claim that they need more power over us all and more of our money to “fix” it.

      2. Isn’t that what “green” is? Less. Less stuff. Less money. Less consumption…
        Except for Al Gore and Hollywood priests of the new green moralism that insists they use private jets because….uh, well they’re special and the common riff-raft will disturb the green aura that keeps them attuned to mother earth.

    2. But the green jobs are only hope against Anthropomorphic Global Hoaxing.

  2. Great alt-text. Except not.

    How about this: “Ironically, this sign was made with petro-based ink.”

    1. How about “Green Jobs imaginary”?

    2. I know, I know. I’m certainly NO Tim Cavanaugh, but I’ll try to get better. 🙂

      1. How about “the other side of this sign says Hand Jobs”? Not too clever, but it has a classiness.

  3. For every green job created by the Spanish government, Alvarez found that 2.2 jobs were destroyed elsewhere in the economy because resources were directed politically and not rationally, as in a market economy.

    So, in other words, the system worked exactly as planned.

  4. Here’s the Pajamas Media link that John originally posted, which includes a full translation of the original Spanish article.

  5. Jeebus! Can my day get ANY better? All I need now is a Balko post for the cherry on top! Sweet!

  6. But the state can plan ahead better than any single company can! I’m sure they saw this coming.

  7. But inconveniently for the eco-conscious, his results have been backed up by Carlo Stagnaro and Luciano Lavecchia, a couple of researchers from the Italian think tank Istituto Bruno Leoni.

    Aslo inconveniently for the eco-conscious, his results have been backed up by French researcher Fr?d?ric Bastiat in 1848.

  8. Istituto Bruno Leoni is a self-described “libertarian, free-market” non-profit, not an objective organization devoted to good science. Let’s think about it: libertarians oppose green jobs, and so a libertarian organization publishes a study saying green jobs suck. Golly gee, who would have expected that?!

    1. Yes, libertarian free-marketers are totally opposed to good science, unlike quasi-religious environmentalists. I see the light now! Praise science!

      1. I do believe you’re right.

      2. unlike quasi-religious environmentalists.

        What is quasi about their religious fervor? They are no different, other than what they put their faith in, than a Southern baptist or Sunni Moslem.

    2. libertarians oppose green jobs boondoggles for politically connected cronies

      Happy to clear that up for you. Oh, and…DRINK!

      1. I notice you’ve utterly failed to refute the point I made. This is why libertarianism is so weak. It can’t think.

        1. You forgot to mention that we’re all racists too, since none of us have proven otherwise.

        2. To be fair, you really did not make a point. More like a bit of snark, and weak snark at that.

          Let me pose a query for you, Mr. voice:

          When a government agency produces a report or study indicating that some problem requires increasing said agency’s purview/budget/powers, do you look at such a report with the healthy skepticism that you view this study?

          Or do you subscribe to the “benevolent actors” theory of government?

    3. No, libertarians do not “oppose green jobs” – I don’t even know where you get that from. Libertarians oppose centralized control of the economy by bureaucrats who are delusional enough to think they know enough or are capable of directing the economy.

      1. Well, when it comes to “green jobs”, I am kind of undecided on the subject of illegal Vulcan immigrants.

      2. I don’t even know where you get that from.

        Probably from the same place that says Bush “massively deregulated the financial sector.”

      3. Libertarians oppose centralized control of the economy by bureaucrats who are delusional enough to think they know enough or are capable of directing the economy.

        Yet many self described libertarians are okay with centralized control of the food and biotech portions of the economy.

        1. Are you still on this, didn’t you just post this same message a thread or two down

        2. Where are you getting that idea?

          1. I believe he is referring to the Illuminati Brethren in charge of THE GREAT monSAnTo corporAtioN.

      4. Question for a Libertarian: does the government have a right to collect taxes on gasoline sales and use this money to build highways which may not benefit the person paying the tax? Or should this be left to private industry (e.g. for-profit tolls)? If gov’t is “allowed” to pay for highways, why not paying for renewable energy sources?

    4. I guessed you missed the part about the socialist government of Spain also saying that green jobs suck. Or are you that much of a retard?

      1. Where is this report? You see, unlike a libertarian, I actually try to evaluate source material for myself, rather than relying on an opinion from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

        1. Here you go, fuckstain.

        2. So why don’t you read the source material that the report was based on?

          Unlike socialists, libertarians evaluate economic decisions on what you get out compared to what you put in.

          As one poster above suggested, why don’t you try reading Smith, Ricardo and Bastiat instead of Naomi Klein’s misrepresentations? Or even read Marx, who admitted that capitalism had “solved the problem of production”?

          1. Wrong. Libertarians (and corporations) flagrantly ignore any cost they can dump on third parties.

            http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/10/22/coal-oil-kills/

            For example, the 20,000 Americans that are murdered by your ideology every year.

      2. Yes. Yes, he is.

    5. Golly gee, who would have expected that?!

      Um, the Spanish government?

      Fuck! What does it take to get a troll around here who wasn’t damaged in utero by excessive drug use by the mother?

      1. They are not trolls. Juanita is a troll. She or whoever posts as her posts outrageous things for entertainment purposes. Trolling means saying things you no are crazy to get a response. These people actually believe this shit. And this kind of post is what passes for rational thought and argument for them. Go read the Daily Kos or TPM comments sometime. If anything, the liberals who come on here are smarter than the average.

        1. If anything, the liberals who come on here are smarter than the average.

          I fear for our country.

          1. I don’t. I need the these useful idiots.

    6. libertarians oppose government subsidization of green jobs that could if left to the mercies of the market not justify their existence.

      There I fixed it for you you dope.

    7. libertarians oppose green jobs,

      Nonsense. Libertarians don’t oppose any jobs, so long as they are not subsidized by the state or created and maintained by state mandates.

      Now, if by “green jobs” you mean kleptocratic rent-seeking redistribution of wealth to politically favored constituencies, then yes, I would be opposed to green jobs.

      1. Then you must oppose the oil and coal industries all the more–as they receive orders of magnitude more public subsidies.

        Reason suckles off the energy production status quo so they have a good reason not to ever mention this. What’s your excuse?

        1. Show of hands here who supports subsidies for ANY industry.

          None? Didn’t think so. Have you ever posted here before Tony? Or do you only post and not read too?

          1. As long as you let any industry damage the commons, you are subsidizing them.

            So, what price do you prefer for carbon? PM10 particulates? Mercury? Noise? Stench? Ozone?

        2. “Then you must oppose the oil and coal industries all the more–as they receive orders of magnitude more public subsidies.”

          I’m sure he opposed the bona fide subsidies they specifically receive, yes.

          If you’re using the bullshit that Left-wing Message Central has put out recently that says the same benefits government provides to everyone (roads, security, etc.) are “subsidies” to businesses, then cram your ridiculous dishonest argument up your ass.

        3. Then you must oppose the oil and coal industries all the more–as they receive orders of magnitude more public subsidies.

          Like what?

          1. Like tens in billions in direct tax breaks?

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..02207.html

            Like the ability to murder 20,000 Americans each year and not pay a nickel for it?

            http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/10/22/coal-oil-kills/

            At $10 million per life (a standard economic figure), that’s a mere $200 billion dollar subsidy. And you can double that for the people that are made sick, and double it again for environmental and climate damage.

            Makes that 2.1c/kwh production tax credit for renewables look like a drop in the ocean.

            So, why are you defending an 11-figure subsidy?

        4. Oh, Tony. I don’t support government subsidies of ANY industry. I did once. And I got to see the results. Fuck that scene.

          1. The problem is that you don’t consider special tax breaks as subsidies, and you don’t consider the free use of common areas as a subsidy. Hell, you don’t see the ability to dump pollution on OTHER PEOPLES’ PROPERTY as a subsidy, either. You simply assume that the affected party will sue, even though there is a stupendous flaw with this logic: it only makes sense to sue if the damage is high. Therefore, your ideology has no way to address situations where a polluter harms a large number of people a very small amount.

      2. “then yes, I would be opposed to green jobs”

        -unfortunately, the above quote is all the nutjob liberals heard you say

    8. i suppose you think the report from the current Socialist government is also bias?

      1. Cue sound of head exploding.

    9. So, what’s an example of “an objective organization devoted to good science”?

      Seems that you’re automatically assuming that a libertarian organization can’t be objective. Why is that?

      Are there any other classes of organizations, other than libertarian, that are inherently incapable of being objective?

  9. The green lobby can’t claim bias in this analysis because the Zapatero administration that compiled it is a socialist government that sees windmills when more rational people see dragons.

    Thank you, Sancho Panza

  10. “… a socialist government that sees windmills when more rational people see dragons.”

    Too smooth! One can only hope that political deadlock will halt Obama’s Big Green Dream in its tracks.

    1. Shouldn’t you be working on your next Michener book.

  11. Once again, a number of people here demonstrate that rather than read and judge for themselves, then would rather parrot a quote from CEI, which doesn’t even provide a link to the study in question. I would suggest trying to think objectively, by doing things like reading AN ACTUAL STUDY on the effectiveness of supporting green industry..

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…..b9e00c87b8

    1. Try this one on for size.

      http://www.juandemariana.org/p…..ewable.pdf

    2. STFU Trueofvoice, you are worse than John/Lonewacko

    3. Wow. He knows how to use Google. He really is smarter than most Kosies. Now why don’t you provide the counter argument and demonstrate you know what the fuck you are talking about.

      Bailey did. Is that too much to ask?

    4. Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering at Queen’s University is not an objective organization devoted to good science.

      See, I can arbitrarily declare that your studies are invalid just as easy as you can.

  12. “Highly specialized prostitutes flock to once-in-a-lifetime concurrence of Star Trek and Village People fan conventions on Capitol lawn.”

  13. Pilfering Animal Farm now? Goddamn you sir! Is “Vanneman” now Me-speak for “brilliant”? You truly are the worst kind of person.

  14. Seems our government is step behind in many ways. Greece has proven an unfettered welfare state can’t be sustained, and now Spain has proven that Green jobs don’t perform as advertised. Yet the US is hell bent on moving forward, evidence be damned. Because this time the “right people” are in charge.

    1. Hell our people are even proper socialists compared to the Euros. Does that mean they know less of what they are doing and things will be worse than Greece?

      1. aren’t proper socialists I should have said

  15. An op/ed in today’s Investors Business Daily is reporting….

    How can an op/ed, even in a journalistic resource as esteemed and unbiased as the Investors Business Daily, “report” anything? The whole point of an op-ed is to present opinion, not convey facts.

    1. STEVE SMITH LIKE BIG STRAPPING HITCHHIKERS! THAT IS FACT NO ONE DISPUTE!

    2. Because the op-ed is based on this reporting in Spain.

      https://reason.com/blog/2010/05…..nt_1717051

      And in case you don’t read Spanish. the headline in English reads

      “Spain admits that the green economy as sold to Obama is a disaster.”

    3. It doesn’t. It provides no facts of any kind regarding the goverment study, nor does it provide the resources for us to evaluate the study ourselves. We’re just supposed to accept what we’re told uncritically.

      1. Yeah. It is all a lie. That is why the Spanish papers love the Spanish program so much.

    4. DADDY???? DADDY, IS IT REALLY YOU???? JR. MISS DADDY’S BRINGING HIKER REMAINS!!!!!

      1. Your father is a true patriot participating in our recycling program, son. Be proud!

    5. STEVE SMITH SAYS OBAMA NOT COMMUNIST! OBAMA DOES NOT ADVOCATE TAKING OVER THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION! THAT
      IS A LOT OF WORK, RISK AND RESPONSIBILITY! YOU KEEP TITLE. WE INSIST!

  16. Let me provide another link to an actual study, rather than an opinion piece on a study we don’t have access to. I encourage anyone with an independent mind to read it for themselves.

    http://www.iie.com/publication…..rchID=1574

    1. Sure. And on page 2, even they admit that it is a boondoggle

      “The American Power Act prompts $41.1 billion in annual electricity sector investment between 2011 and 2030, $22.5 billion more than under business
      as usual. Given that the United States is currently below full employment with most economists projecting a slow labor market recovery, this investment is more stimulative than inflationary in the first decade, resulting in an average
      annual increase in US employment of 203,000 jobs above business as usual, with the net of the jobs lost in fossil fuel production and as a result of higher energy prices between
      2001 and 2020. In the second decade of the program, higher energy and product prices offset the employment gains from new investment. The potential employment benefits of increased US competitiveness in clean energy exports, unlocking profitable investment opportunities in energy
      efficiency, and spillover from clean energy innovation into other sectors are not quantified in this analysis.”

      What that is saying is is that yes this program is going to make us inefficient and cost us jobs. But we will make all that money back by selling our inefficient technology overseas.

      It amazes me that people with college degrees can be that stupid and that immune to common sense.

      1. John, well said. I love the

        “Gasoline prices are only 9 cents higher than business
        as usual on average between 2011 and 2020 and 10 cents
        higher between 2021 and 2030.”

        And this –
        “Households will also face higher prices for nonenergy
        goods as the firms producing them face higher energy costs.
        This and the increase in household energy expenditures (in
        the core scenario) are offset by higher income from an increase
        in employment in the first decade and the rebate of allowance
        revenue to consumers, which ramps up in the second
        decade. On the whole, real household consumption is slightly
        higher under the American Power Act than under business as
        usual during the period evaluated ($37 per year more on average
        between 2011 and 2030). Overall GDP is only moderately
        impacted?0.07 percent higher than business as usual on
        average during the first decade and 0.23 percent lower during
        next decade.”

        Lots of assumptions and magical numbers in there.

        1. Wow. That is amazing. They honestly think that the government produces its own wealth. All the above is saying is that government expenditures will make up for the higher costs of energy so we will be better off.

          Like I said, how can educated people be this stupid. My sister is mentally disabled and has an IQ under 90 and she would see through that.

    2. I also love the

      “$41.1 billion in annual electricity sector investment between 2011 and 2030, $22.5 billion more than under business as usual.”

      As if that money didn’t come from somewhere else. That “study” is literally argueing that we are going to somehow how get $41 billion for free without taxing it or taking it from someone else, and use that to create “green jobs” that are inefficient and costly. But that is okay because we will make that up in the second decade when we export all of this inefficient and costly technology overseas.

      1. next step: go back to picking cotton by hand. Think of all the diesel we’ll save, and all the jobs we’ll create!!! We’ll be rich, rich, RICH I tells ya!!!!!

    3. Independent minds know that government doesn’t “create” anything.

      Government cannot create resources or wealth out of thin air. It cannot give anything to anybody without first taking it away from someone else.

      All it does is engage in forced transfer payments. It isn’t possible for the benefits to the transferees to exceed the detriments to the transferors.

      The “green jobs” mantra is merely an offshoot of Keynesian economic theory. A theory that has never been proven to have worked anywhere it’s ever been tried on the planet.

      1. No Gilbert. “The state can think ahead and balance competing interests in a way that no single company can.”

        I read it in Salon. It must be true. That is what these people think. They honestly believe that a group of enlightened technocrats can allocate resources better than the market. It is as if the failure of Communism never happened.

        I guess it is a product of our education system over the last 30 years teaching 20th Century world history as a history of the twin evils of Japanese internment and McCarthyism. I honestly don’t think people like trueofvoice have any idea how, why or even if Communism failed.

    4. You’re kidding, right? You link a report that analyzes the potential impact of draft legislation, that, by and large, is based on fantasy. IOW, here are some highly speculative predictions we’re pulling out of our ass.

    5. Voice: May I suggest that you read this nice objective German study on the failure of green jobs. Then come back and explain why it’s wrong.

  17. resources were directed politically and not rationally, as in a market economy

    *wobbles off toward fainting couch*

    1. How, may I ask, does one revive a “fainting couch”?

      Are you okay today, P?

  18. If the Obama administration were pursuing a deliberate policy of impoverishing the nation, they could hardly do better than their current policies.

    Speaking of which:

    Toyota has apparently entered a joint venture with Tesla to build cars at the recently decommissioned NUMMI plant. Ron Gettelfinger is “urging” them to bring back the same UAW workers they just managed to toss overboard.

    What is the likelihood the secretaries of Transportation and Labor invite Toyota management in for a little “sit-down”?

    1. “What is the likelihood the secretaries of Transportation and Labor invite Toyota management in for a little “sit-down”?”

      It is the Chicago Way.

    2. I have a bet with a friend that the next contrived, anti-Toyota panic will involve Fire – he says Ice. Other options include rodents and Keanu Reeves.

  19. Jesus Fucking Christ. We’re already over our liberal moron quota, but they still keep on coming.

    1. It bugs me that the quality of debate from the left is so incredibly weak. The far right isn’t much of an improvement, but for those who claim to be the “intellectually elite” they are unbelievably stupid.

      I don’t like echo chambers and I would prefer more robust and logical debate.

      1. Me to. The thing is that the far right inhabits gun shows and compounds out in Idaho. The Left inhabits all the major news shows, most of government, and nearly all of academia. It is appalling the quality of debate from the left. It is complete intellectual bankruptcy. That wouldn’t bother me if they were marginalized. But they own most of the civil institutions in this country.

        1. The gun show crowd is completely insane and unlistenable, but at least you can sometimes get a deal on ammo from them. I can’t think of anything similarly worthwhile that the retarded left produces.

          1. A free and prosperous civilization isn’t enough?

            1. Hey Tony, got any deals on .223? No? Then shut the fuck up, idiot.

              1. Cabela’s, Warty. I’m guessing that’s about as good as you’ll get. If they have any in stock, that is.

                1. Cabela’s sucks. Southern Ohio Gun and ammunitionstore.com are where it’s at.

                  My problem is that I still think ammo should be at 2001 prices. I miss getting 1000 round cases of 7.62×39 for $79.

                  1. Try ammoman.com too.

              2. No, but I could give you a rimjob that’d blow your mind.

            2. Hey Tony, guess we have different definations of “free and prosperous”

              Free has in freedom of speech but if the liberals don’t like it – it’s racist.

              Free has been able to live your life in the way you want right? Unless you smoke, or like soda, or like salt.

              It’s only free when people agree with you Tony right? If people don’t, say like Bush, than it’s horrible and oppressive.

              The liberals don’t believe the little people know better so they have to tell them what to do. That’s not freedom.

            3. A free and prosperous civilization isn’t enough?

              How is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea free and prosperous?

            4. He said “produces”, not “consumes”

        2. But they own most of the civil institutions in this country.

          So how do we take those institutions back?

          1. Don’t. Make them irrelevant and watch as they crumble.

  20. We’re already over our liberal moron quota, but they still keep on coming.

    They just can’t cope with the idea of personal freedom; they REALLY can’t cope with the “freedom to be wrong” part.

    Their tiny little brains begin to sputter and smoke, and emit absurd randomly sequenced phrases.

    1. Freedom to be wrong is fine as long as it doesn’t interfere with my life. Should we dismiss the massive damage caused to our shared environment and economy by the gulf oil spill because BP is “free to be wrong”?

      1. Tony, BP just created thousands of green jobs with this oil spill. Seriously. The environmental cleanup will probably last years.

        The point of my analogy is that the government will probably do more environmental AND economic damage by creating the so-called green jobs.

      2. BP is a bad example. Oil rigs operate in a commons. Commons regulations of some sort are readily accepted by most proponents of free markets. You may gripe that the regulations were insufficient, but that’s not as a result of free market theory. That’s as a result of payola.

        1. And coal plants don’t operate in a commons?

          When are you going to start putting a price on every form of pollution they spew? Oh yeah…that will be precisely the day before they declare bankruptcy, because they couldn’t afford to pay for the damages they do.

      3. Where do you live Tony? Are you going to claim the whole earth and everything that happens on it to personally affect you? It is between BP and the residents affected as far as restitution is concerned.

        1. Actually, there is no bigger polluter in the United States than our own government. Not only that, but they don’t even want to clean up their own trash!

      4. Freedom doesn’t mean immunity from the consequences of your mistakes — but taking away people’s ability to make mistakes can be more destructive than allowing them to make them; outside of the ethical issues and potential for abuse (that is, the likelihood that at some point someone will be taking away the freedom to do the right thing), you’re probably throwing out the baby with the bathwater since most novel useful ideas are needles in the haystack of harebrained schemes.

  21. Speaking of gun shows, I’m thinking of screening up a batch of “Culpeper” flag shirts, and taking them to the Helena gun show.

    I think I might be able to sell a few.

  22. Should we dismiss the massive damage caused to our shared environment and economy by the gulf oil spill because BP is “free to be wrong”?

    I rest my case.

    1. That was almost too perfect. Are we sure P Brooks isn’t Tony?

  23. That won’t happen here. The right people are in charge.

  24. Are we sure P Brooks isn’t Tony?

    *I’m* sure.

  25. Warty, would you run down to Southern Ohio Gun and pick me up a surplus Sig P6 and send it to me?

    I’ll be your friend.

    (It’s not like I’m asking you to commit some sort of federal crime, or anything.)

    1. Long as he sends it to your FFL, it’s all good.

    2. Hm. I may have to drive down to Cincy for some surplus Sigs and some Jungle Jim’s. Cincinnati Reasonites, is Jungle Jim’s still as awesome as it was 15 years ago?

  26. Come on, Bailey. Everybody loves you like the one smart person in the family, but you gots ta work on the alt-tag funny.

  27. Freedom to be wrong is fine as long as it doesn’t interfere with my life.

    And this is where we see how the lefty liberal statist misunderstands the nature of freedom. They don’t understand that it means “freedom to act”, not “freedom from consequences.”

    Should we dismiss the massive damage caused to our shared environment and economy by the gulf oil spill because BP is “free to be wrong”?

    Lovely. To a lefty liberal statist, you aren’t free unless you are free to stick someone else with the bill.

    See, libertarians are about being free to act, and being responsible for the consequences of your actions. If those consequences are ginormous profits, well, you get to keep them. If they are ruinous damages, you get to pay them.

  28. Alan: All right, all right. I’ll see if Tim can give me lessons.

    1. reason: Come for the free markets, stay for the alt-text humor.

  29. So, perhaps we should bring back the ‘Switch-Board Operator’. God knows how many of them were put out of work.

    My real question is: If the environment is affected by us not being green, is it ok to fix it? Or, should we just let the environment go to hell in a hand-basket for the sake of good paying jobs in the oil industry?

    Look, I understand why conservatives/libertarians support the oil industry and everything they say…it fits right into big-business. And, most of you would be OK to let a factory pollute rivers/air/land as long as YOU don’t live near the pollution. It would be a bigger crime that the polluter move to MEXICO than stay here and kill us…for better jobs. Right!!!

    All I can say is this. BIG Oil has a vested interest in us NEVER going with alternative fuel. They worship the same god libertarians/conservatives do…the $$$ god.

    Green people, at least on the surface, whether they are right/wrong about the environment, are not motivated by $$$ and are sincerely interested in saving the environment.

    1. Sweet mother Mary in a smoking birch bark canoe. No, libertarians do not support dumping negative externalities on everybody else. Why the fuck do morons keep peddling this idea? Part of the problem here, as elsewhere, is that government has explicitly limited the liability of the polluter. Under any sane system, BP would be liable for all of the damages caused by this event, not just some arbitrary amount set by Congress.

      And don’t judge people by their motivations, judge them by their actions. Greens are primarily interested in controlling people, not in saving the environment.

  30. I would be very tentative repeating these claims until I had read the full report. At least enough to understand the caveats and margins of error. The global economy is greatly depressed, are these job losses adjusted for employment change based on external economic factors? Do they compare the cost of energy now compared to 1, 5, or 10 years from now? Countries that 10 years from now have mature green economies could very well be net job positive?

  31. And of course this begs the question of how these jobs are lost? I mean to have a job loss the green jobs must be producing the same product at greater efficiency. Yes? Isn’t that the market goal of business?

    1. In a free market job loss in a single sector is usually a good thing: it means the same product is being produced at greater efficiency. Of course that greater efficiency means that the economy as a whole is wealthier and those who lost their jobs can be employed doing something else. So in the economy as a whole there is no job loss in general. Everyone who wants to be employed can be employed in continually improving jobs. In fact, since the jobs improve, we can expect more jobs in toto as those who had been out of the job market find better opportunities in it.

      However, we are not talking about a free market here: we are talking about taxes and subsidies designed to inflate one sector at the expense of other sectors and the economy as a whole.

      The job losses from green jobs occur because (a) cheap energy is artificially made more expensive, so less is bought and less is used and therefore fewer are employed in cheap energy production and consumption, and (b) the economy is burdened with new taxes to generate the subsidies.

      Again, to say there is job loss in the entire economy isn’t entirely accurate. If the economy were otherwise free, everyone who wanted to be employed could be employed. But the jobs are, in fact, worse on average due to the impact of green job subsidies rather than better as is the case in a free market. This will have the effect of pushing more people out of the job market as they find it more affordable to simply stay home rather than be a second income in the household.

  32. Still trying to count angels dancing on the heads of pins, Ron?

    And I love how your data is “backed up” by a libertarian think tank.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Leoni_Institute

    You can’t count jobs, and anyone who tries is just measuring their assumptions, and nothing more.

    1. Still trying to count angels dancing on the heads of pins, Ron?

      You can’t count jobs, and anyone who tries is just measuring their assumptions, and nothing more.

      Do you post this exact same message on progressive forums too?

      1. Yes. Why? Do you think I say different things around the treehuggers?

        “Green jobs” are a myth. It will largely be a wash. Renewables will probably increase average employment in the long run, because renewables will mitigate economic cycles by reducing our exposure to volatile commodity prices. Recessions will likely be less frequent and less severe once they are decoupled from oil shocks.

        By and large, a GW of coal and a GW of wind require about the same number of people to produce. Even if they didn’t, people would just adapt to the new situation and find a job elsewhere in the medium-term.

        1. Why? Do you think I say different things around the treehuggers?

          Yes, that’s why.

          “Green jobs” are a myth. It will largely be a wash.

          I myself don’t buy the myth that jobs are scarce. Modulo freedoms such as no minimum wage and low-friction hiring, green taxes and subsidies do not create or destroy jobs in toto: They only lower their average quality or pay.

          1. I think we agree on something. There is no scarcity of jobs in the long term. However, when the economy is disrupted and changing faster than workers and businesses can adapt, you see mass unemployment. Migitation of the business cycle will reduce this “friction”.

            Of course, the economy needs to change so that it can grow and develop. But it needs to do so on a human time-scale.

  33. Well, we now have access to the Spanish study, and find that it’s deeply flawed. The author never actually identifies the jobs which are “destroyed” by green policies, he simply makes the claim and expects us to accept it.

    The author, Caldaza, is (surprise!) a founder and member of Fundacion Juan de Mariana, a libertarian think tank which has taken hundreds of thousands in donations from ExxonMobil. He provides no source for his claim of job destruction or his research. But, you don’t have to take my word for it. As I’ve said many times (and one day I hope a libertarian will take me up on it), read the study for yourself.

    http://www.juandemariana.org/p…..ewable.pdf

  34. Why the R wing thinks it has a monopoly on loving target practice above here is beyond me! The $$$ my parents save with their passive solar house bought a second car, allowed the purchase of a vacation property, and employed architects and construction workers as the up front investment. If a teacher and a lab worker can do that (could in the late 70s before the property inflation relative to wages), and reap benefits, maybe the prospects for shifting some spending from fuel into a black heating hole to green building projects and so on isn’t going to be so bad. The sun has a lot of largesse that hasn’t been harvested much yet. Yes, I’ve got my RRSP in oil stocks, but I’ll be investing my profits in green home energy that saves me $$$ soon.

  35. Anybody want to comment on the NRDC blog? “Study finds American Power Act creates jobs while decreasing household energy expenditures.”

    http://switchboard.nrdc.org/bl…..r_act.html

    Everything that I’ve read shows that the APA will stifle growth to the tune of 2+ jobs lost for every new one created.

  36. Why is it when Libertarians get funded by a certain constituency it’s news, but when a climatologist gets funded by the same corporation it’s not?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.