Green Jobs Stupidity

[Danno 1,228]

Danno still likes to play stick ball.

Thats a limited argument you make for green Jobs Steven.

At some point you are going to have to get past funny pics and make your case.

"Green" jobs will develop on their merit in the market place.... the Gov is the very poorest chooser of market winners.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Thats a limited argument you make for green Jobs Steven.

At some point you are going to have to get past funny pics and make your case.

"Green" jobs will develop on their merit in the market place.... the Gov is the very poorest chooser of market winners.

Meanwhile we hand out subsidies for oil, nuclear and coal. You're a riot, Danno. A stupid, ignorant riot.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Green Jobs Stupidity

The president's smug assertion that the "science" of global warming is settled turns out to be anther example of liberal-progressives' dogmatic closed-mindedness. His continuing devotion to "green" jobs can only be described as willful stupidity.

Tom Emerson forwarded the Wall Street Journal's European editorial opinion, which recounts the readily available information regarding the wasteful and feckless efforts of the Spanish and German governments to create green jobs.

No matter how one fudges the numbers or rationalizes about environmental benefits, green jobs require enormous government subsidies. The extra money for those subsidies is forcibly taken via taxes from businesses that would have been able to to use the money for more productive purposes. Thereby is an economy diminished. Green jobs, for example, in production of ethanol have raised food prices for the world's poor and used more petroleum energy in production of ethanol than would have been used without ethanol.

The Journal's editorial commences:

As he did for health care, President Obama has turned to Europe for inspiration on the environment. Countries such as Spain and Germany are "making real investments in renewable energy" and are "surging ahead of us," he has warned. In last week's State of the Union speech, Mr. Obama proposed to reverse the trend: "The nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy," he said. "America must be that nation."

To say, "The nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy," is equivalent to saying that those who waste the most money will become the richest. To suggest that green jobs will increase the productivity of our economy is nonsense.

Productivity increases come from discovering more efficient ways to produce existing goods and services, or to create new goods and services that people find useful. Green jobs reverse the process by making production less efficient and more costly and by producing goods and services that few people, given free choice, will want.

The president's views make sense only under the rubric of Keynesian macroeconomics. Keynes, during the 1930s Depression, proclaimed that the only way to revive a depressed economy was application of large amounts of government spending. What the money was spent for was immaterial. Digging holes one day, filling them then next day, then endlessly repeating the cycle, would work nicely, Keynes thought.

"Green"jobs conform to that senseless paradigm. Green jobs add little if anything to the goods and services that people outside the rarified enclaves of the Northeast and Beverly Hills will pay for if given the opportunity to choose. Moreover, the product of green jobs is worth less than the cost to produce it, hence the necessity for government subsidies to producers and to buyers.

Economics is the study of allocating most efficiently and productively the limited amounts of resources available at any one time to a political society. Green jobs, CO2 regulation, and the whole clap-trap of smarter-than-you collectivist control favored by liberal-progressives is assuredly not economics. It is a wasteful sacrifice on the altar of the secular religion of socialism.

http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/web...jobs_stupidity/

Ahhhhhhhh the biased source... The about section of Mr. Brewton's website:

Thomas E. Brewton, who maintains this blog, had the great good fortune in the middle 1950s at Louisiana State University to study under two of the 20th century's great minds: Eric Voegelin in political science, and Walter Berns in Constitutional law. These two professors opened the door of education to a glimpse of Western civilization and of American political and social thought as they had been before socialism was unconstitutionally established as the official national religion of the United States in 1933.

That door to understanding has been nailed tightly shut since the late 1960s by the forces of the liberal-socialist jihad. Educators have imposed speech and behavior codes to prevent teaching and discussion of anything other than the catechism of socialism. Generations of young students have been radicalized to hate the United States and to regard its history as a chronicle of imperialistic crimes.

The View from 1776 is intended to be a tool to remove the barriers of socialism and once again pry open the door to understanding.

[Niels Bohr 72]

You missed my point.

The intention was that "wait until the last minute to find other energy resources". The time is when 1 year before all coal runs out. That is what you wanted.

When scientists estimate how much coal, petroleum, natural gas, or other energy sources there are in the United States, they use the term reserves. Reserves are coal deposits that can be mined using today's mining methods and technology. Experts estimate that the United States has about 265 billion tons of coal reserves. If we continue to use coal at the same rate as we do today, we will have enough coal to last 285 years. This vast amount of coal makes the United States the world leader in known coal reserves.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

You missed my point.

The intention was that "wait until the last minute to find other energy resources". The time is when 1 year before all coal runs out. That is what you wanted.

Please specify?

Real ones? or the ones you dream about?

Edited February 5, 2010 by Col. Lingus

[mawilson 2,133]

Fossil fuels are a finite source of energy. The future is NOT in fossils.

Humans will not outlive fossil fuels. A cataclysmic event will end life on earth before we run out of fossil fuels.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Didn't know you have dreams.

Please specify?

Real ones? or the ones you dream about?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Didn't know you have dreams.

Nope just turning yours into a nightmare. By the way you walkin to work tomorrow?

[Peikko 1,575]

Humans will not outlive fossil fuels. A cataclysmic event will end life on earth before we run out of fossil fuels.

You're building a bomb?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Humans will not outlive fossil fuels. A cataclysmic event will end life on earth before we run out of fossil fuels.

So, we just accept defeat? Very comforting.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Humans will not outlive fossil fuels. A cataclysmic event will end life on earth before we run out of fossil fuels.

I think you've been watching too many Bruce Willis movies.

[Danno 1,228]

You missed my point.

The intention was that "wait until the last minute to find other energy resources". The time is when 1 year before all coal runs out. That is what you wanted.

The reality is based in supply in demand.

As supply decreases, demand will drive up price..... giving (real) incentive to develop the next means to power our energy needs.

This evolution will take years probably, decades, it's not a "last minute" situation where the Oil spout runs suddenly dry or the last rock of coal is shoveled.

Exploration and recover gets more and more expensive until some other source of energy becomes cheaper.

In fact the oil supply will never actually run out, just the low hanging fruit... of which we still have plenty.

[Niels Bohr 72]

You haven't taken a political science class have you? Nevermind about Women Studies.

They teach you the limits of the world's resources. And, they teach you to create policies to effectively make sure that the population will have enough resources to come.

The reality is based in supply in demand.

As supply decreases, demand will drive up price..... giving (real) incentive to develop the next means to power our energy needs.

This evolution will take years probably, decades, it's not a "last minute" situation where the Oil spout runs suddenly dry or the last rock of coal is shoveled.

Exploration and recover gets more and more expensive until some other source of energy becomes cheaper.

In fact the oil supply will never actually run out, just the low hanging fruit... of which we still have plenty.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Niels Bohr

[Darnell 8,479]

So, any one have 'positive convictions' about how they are gonna participate in the 'green economy' ?

Mine are:

crops for biodiesel

mini factories for biodiesel

installation krewes for solar products

manufacturing plants for solar products.

for some, i have direct managerial involvement, on others, i'm only a private investor.

What are YOU doing?

[FortLaudy 10]

I think a huge number of jobs will be created by rebuilding the energy infrastructure.

What's wrong with a little improvement on an old technology btw? Should we just be stuck in a rut or look for better ways to sustainably live on this earth?