The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
The Public Policy
Print Email
Text Size

The Public Policy

Politics, Economics, and Green Jobs 


Passing the political test is no guarantee of economic success -- just the opposite, in fact.

In politics, anything is possible; in economics, it's not. The former explains the latest fad in triangulation: "green jobs." The latter explains the green movement's greatest challenge: regardless how much some may wish otherwise, an objective standard exists that it must meet in order to succeed.

The political is forever in search of easy solutions to please, or at least appease, a sizeable majority. It is no wonder that triangulation, the idea that a third way can always be found between absolutes, is so popular. As our problems become more difficult, the search for easy solutions becomes more intense.

Having elevated global warming to "crisis" with no particular foresight, the political class is now in need of an acceptable solution -- one that appears not to cost the electorate too much in money, jobs, and convenience. Violà, "green jobs!" They will not merely clean the world, but simultaneously solve our economic problems.

The challenge that green jobs' creation and sustaining present is brushed blithely away as a modern day Space Race. Of course, the fact that the 1960s' Space Race was relatively easy -- taking a man to the moon and safely back -- is overlooked. That still amounted to taking just one person to one place. Today's green revolution proposes figuratively to transport the entire planet to another place.

The question whether this can be done "safely" is still open to debate. Or at least it should be.

While green jobs may be the answer to the political class, the economic class is still left with impertinent questions. Will the green revolution be more productive than current methods of producing and using energy? The answer is important. Only if it is "yes" can the green movement succeed in producing the jobs it promises.

Certainly it will create jobs, but it will cost them too. Yes, it will create new energy, but will it compensate for the energy sources and uses it would have us eschew?

And these basic questions beg another: If this is possible, why is it not already being pursued? If it were possible, the economic pay-off, regardless of motivation, would already exist and should have been profitably seized.

This question of productivity -- is a new mode of endeavor more efficient than the old? -- has been faced by all technological revolutions. Only if they are --in the case of motive power: sail over oar, steam over sail, coal over steam, and petroleum over coal -- is replacement possible.

Without greater productivity, change is cost-prohibitive. Prosperity springs from productivity. We are only as prosperous as we are productive. No one can successfully incur the added cost of replacement if the new method is not sufficiently more productive. As inconvenient as this truth may be, we must conform to this absolute.

This is not to say that the green revolution cannot meet this challenge, it is simply saying that it must. Failure to do so will mean our standard of living will not be replaced and the promised green jobs will not be the equal to those they destroyed.

Politics' palette is comprised of infinite shades of gray. Economics uses just two colors: black and red, as in profits and losses. When you write the laws, as politicians do, it is easy to arrive at the misconception that you also make the rules. It is not hard therefore to understand why they believe adding green could allow them to circumvent economics' black and red.

In economics El Dorado is rarely found, in politics it is rarely missed. In the political world, one does not get far on the strength of bare majorities, let alone minorities. This is why so many difficult issues go unmet. With today's problems, the temptation to accept the political route is doubly attractive. But politics' necessity still does not allow us to gloss over economics' consequences. Regardless of the infinite subjective justifications for the undertaking, there is still a single objective criterion by which success will be judged.

topics:
Economics, Environmentalism

About the Author

J.T. Young served in the Department of Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004 and as a Congressional staff member from 1987 to 2000.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (18) | Leave a comment

Marc Jeric| 6.3.09 @ 6:45AM

1) There was first in the 1970's the globaloney cooling scam (see e.g. Newsweek April 28 1975 on the internet); the government-paid scientists (90% of them are rejects of private enterprise) recommended to fight the new ice age by sending our war planes to cover the polar ice with soot in order to increase solar heat and prevent crushing of New York skyscrapers by the new glaciers;
2) When that did not work we had the globaloney warming hoax in the 1990's, proclaimed by mainly the same government-paid scientists (Dr. Hansen of the NOAA, for example); to prevent the massive heating, fires, flooding of coastal cities, disappearance of Florida, California, and Caribbean islands, massive hurrucanes, global famine, and other catastrophic events we should nationalize oil and gas and coal and electricity companies;
3) after 11 years of considerable cooling we are now faced with the climate change flimflam where whatever happens with our climate we should nationalize oil and gas and coal and electricity companies; and why not our banks, car companies while we are at it. To prevent this catastrophe the best vehicle presumably is international agreements enforced by the United Nations world government.
As for the influence of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas: on a normal day the atmoshere contains 10,000 ppm (parts per million) of water vapor and about 300 ppm of carbon dioxide. The government-paid scientists say that an increase of 100 ppm of CO2 over the next 50 years will result in a catastrophic warming. The thermal absorptivity of water vapor is 4 times larger than that of carbon dioxide; it follows that the CO2 increase will increase the overall thermal absorptivity of the mixture by about 1/4 of one percent. The production of methane from livestock and the swamps (or as the enviro-nazis call those "wetlands") vastly surpasses the influence of CO2.
There is the Global Warming Petition Project (see Internet) where 31,478 US independent scientists declared that there is no anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming; of these 9,029 are scientists with PhD degrees. Our enviro-nazis tried to sabotage this effort by submiiting phony names with phoney degrees - and then claimed the whole effort by the Petition scientists was a fraud. It took us 3 years and a lot of private money to verify the credentials of all the signatories and clean up the Petition of those saboteurs. See also Manhattan Declaration with more such signatories, plus a large number of scientific groups from other countries who state the same.
I am one of these signatories, MS and PhD degrees from UCLA, with majors in thermodynamics and heat & mass transfer.
I think to fight this communist attempt to secure a world government should not be fought on the narrow grounds of more taxes - that is the losing proposition; where about 50% of the population is on some kind of welfare we will always be outvoted. The battle should be fought and won on the firm scientific basis.
SCAM - HOAX - FLIMFLAM!!!

Doorgunner| 6.3.09 @ 7:24AM

BAN DAVID MATHEWS

stu.b.con| 6.3.09 @ 8:03AM

BAN DAVID MATHEWS

Dagney Taggert| 6.3.09 @ 9:04AM

I don't know Mathews. It seems Mr. Jeric brings a lot more detailed points and scientific credentials to the discussion than your sophmoric "conservatives are dead" rebuttals. Be careful: The enviro-left has put a lot of their eggs in this one basket (where's the 'nuance' those smart lefties are so deft at using to straddle most issues?). Every year that passes by more and more are fleeing the 'believers 'to the 'non-believers' side of the coin. Stay smug and complacent with your recent political victories. We (your political opposition) are confident the truth will win out in the end.

I can tell you never played sports. Your doing your victory dance in the 5th inning--a very dangerous thing to do in all games.

Rearden| 6.3.09 @ 9:36AM

Great Article!

Forget "Global Warming" for a second and get down to brass tacs. This article asks great questions, if evil industrialists are out to maximize their profits at any cost why havn't the monopoplized the "green economy". The simple answer is that there is no money in it. You cannot make something out of nothing. If the green revolution ever happens it will happen out of economic necessity and not political necessity. This whole environment/snake oil/global warming stuff is going to bury the left and unfortunatly bring down the good part of the environmental movement with it. Conservation, much like civil rights, has gone from being a social movement to an industry.

Robert Rosencrans| 6.3.09 @ 10:31AM

Apparently, an imaginary crisis is a terrible thing to waste too.

dcc| 6.3.09 @ 10:48AM

This is the most confusing element of the conservative platform.
Clearly voters are very concerned about environmental quality. Otherwise gloabal warming fears would not gain traction. But and conservative do not establish any sort of position on the matter, thereby forrcing voters who are concerned about environmental problems (and there is a lot more than merely a possibility of anthropogenic climate change) to vote with the liberals and greens.
The only segment of the republican party that consistantly supports environmental quality concerns are hunters and the associated gun rights faction.
The democrats pick up a lot of environemntal votes which the republicans could take with a hunter friendly conservationist stance.

Rearden| 6.3.09 @ 12:06PM

dcc,

You're right. The Rebubs have a natural base for actual conservation and don't tap into it. Yet another example of how the Repub party is out of touch.

NED| 6.3.09 @ 12:12PM

Did somebody say "BAN DAVE MATHEWS"?

I hope so, so that I can come back and start reading these posts again.

Bram| 6.3.09 @ 12:38PM

dcc / Rearden - Yes. I think there is an opportunity for the Republicans to re-discover their Theodore Roosevelt conservationist roots.

I don't believe in any of the "climate change" nonsense. I would, however, like to see the farms and woodlands of my state and country protected and properly managed.

Joe| 6.3.09 @ 1:46PM

Once again Davey boy, demonstrates he know nothing about nothing including true science.

Dagney Taggert| 6.3.09 @ 1:49PM

Good point dcc. My situation is that in addition to being politically conservative, I've been programmed to be environmentally conservative going back to the 70's. My wife votes D, but she'll admit I'm the one who is the nazi-recycler, chastises anyone who leaves the water running while doing dishes/shaving/tooth brushing, encourages walking/biking over driving, and generally uses things 'til their utillity is gone. Just common sense to me.
I also think that despite the headlines, environmental issues always bring up the rear when measured against other issues on voters' minds.

I guess it's typical of the current plight of the conservative: We understand what makes sense and is pragmatic, while the other side rides themes and feelings for all they're worth. How Pelosi got away with "we are not going to drill our way out of this problem" boggles my mind. Proof it doesn't matter how idiotic the message from liberals, as long as it looks like they care.

dcc| 6.3.09 @ 3:03PM

Dagney Taggert.
As you note there is no inherent contradiction between sound or even strong environmental policy and conservatism. But I've been hanging around this blog long enough to see conservatives expressing an inexplicable hostility towards any sort of environmental agenda. The result is that the percentage of the population that is more concerned with the environment than fiscally or socially conservative issues is driven into the arms of the left.
With an evenly split population, most of which is moderate, driving off a significant number of voters is senseless.

Roy| 6.3.09 @ 4:15PM

Well, dcc, "any sort of environmental agenda" costs money or impacts economic growth in other ways and is therefore in tension with "fiscal conservatism". All that means is we need to balance it right - but the tension is there. Even solving real problems costs money.

It should be fairly obvious that if "green jobs" were more productive than those they replaced, the government would not need to force people to pay for them. Hence, they by definition are not. It helps to think less in terms of "creating jobs" than "creating salaries". Want a job? OK, you can carry me around in a sedan chair. Oh, you wanted to get PAID?

A "green job" is one where the salary is justified by some "green" payoff. Since a "green" payoff is a public good, it will not be considered worth it to a private employer. So yes, "green" policies will create "green" jobs - but not "green" salaries. Those are going to be forcibly taken from the productive.

If the "green" payoff is worth it to society fine, but it is by definition not going to make us richer. When you want something - eg, a cleaner environment - you have to pay for it.

dcc| 6.3.09 @ 5:03PM

Roy,
Yes this whole green jobs program is foolishness, it should therefore be a simple matter for republicans to put forth a reasonable environmental policy that doesn't comprise solely of the entitlement sentiments of pollution and wastage.
The first steps are the easiest: eliminate subsidies and giveaways. "green jobs" if productive could stand on their own, sugar farmers should be able to tolerate competition and mining should be able to pay a market rate for mineral rights.
Economic externalities should be tied to ther profiter, but incentives (subsidies) are best left to the market place.

lynnrockets| 6.3.09 @ 6:45PM

Republicans? What Republicans?

THE REPUBLICAN SONG
(sung to the Irish Rovers song “The Unicorn Song”)

A long time ago when the States were new
There were lots of political parties so let’s name a few
They bickered and they fought in this land that was free
But always the sore loser was the G.O.P.

There were Whigs and Tories, Greenbacks, also too
The Progressive Party of 1 – 9 – 1 – 2
Democrats and don’t forget the Labor Party
Yet the sorriest of all was the G.O.P.

The Lord seen some sinnin’ from some of his men
So he grouped ‘em all together in a single pen
He said, “I need a name for you barbarians”
“You’ll be Republicans”
And behave like those…

Whigs and Tories, Greenbacks also too
The Progressive Party of 1 – 9 – 1 – 2
Democrats and don’t forget the Labor Party
The sorriest bunch was still the G.O.P.

Wise Abe Lincoln was there to answer the call
He set free all those slaves so there’d be freedom for all
Teddy Roosevelt did his duty too
These were good deeds well overdue
Just like…

Whigs and Tories, Greenbacks also too
The Progressive Party of 1 – 9 – 1 – 2
Democrats and don’t forget the Labor Party
It looked like there was hope for the G.O.P.

Then came the late 20th century
Them Republicans were up to their old tricks again
Dick Nixon and Watergate led to defeat
Oh, that crooked G.O.P.

There were Whigs and Tories, Greenbacks, also too
The Progressive Party of 1 – 9 – 1 – 2
Then came Ford and Reagan and George Bushes one and two
And reduced the G.O.P. to an old worn shoe

The voters started movin’ to the other side
And with them the hopes of all Republicans died
The Democrats came down and wooed Arlen Specter away
That’s how the Republican Party died and floated away

You’ll see Independents and Democrats too
Green Party members from states both Red and Blue
Libertarians and members of the A.I.P.
We’ll never hear no more from the G.O.P.

Chuck Dee| 6.3.09 @ 7:19PM

"Of course, the fact that the 1960s' Space Race was relatively easy -- taking a man to the moon and safely back -- is overlooked."

I can't believe I just read that. Relative to what? I never thought of rocket science as easy.

Anyway evil monopolistic capitalists-not freemarket entrepeneurs-are taking advantage of the Green. Companies like Exxon Mobile are giving millions of dollars to Green Peace and the Sierra Club. Why? Not so they will leave them alone, but the exact opposite. Increased regulation-up to a point-leads to greater market share. It's hard for a small company with no team of lawyers to get past all the rule and regs required for establishing a new energy business. More regulation means more monopoly. Greens are not only the dupes of communists, but hard boiled monopolistic profiteers as well.

kopres| 4.22.10 @ 1:38AM

ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010Winning is without value if victory has been achieved ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010 or dishonestly. Cheating is easy, but brings no pleasure. Playing ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010 requires courage and character. It is also more satisfying. ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
always has its reward, even when the game is lost. Playing fair earns you respect, while cheats are detested. Remember: It's only a game. And games are pointless unless played ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010

I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You

Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. Zeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale

Getting Hercules to Help You

Both FIFA and UEFA have awards which they hand out to individuals or groups of people who have promoted what they see as the spirit of ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
, both within and outside of football. An example of this was the Italian player Paolo Di Canio who, while not given an award, was congratulated by many sections of the football world for a generous display of ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
. Despite having a goal scoring opportunity while playing for West Ham United against Everton, when Di Canio saw the Everton goalkeeper had picked up an injury, instead of scoring what could have been the easiest goal of his career, he caught the ball, thus stopping ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
and allowing the goalkeeper to receive treatment

Hercules won’t help you until you have all five items from Zeus’ quest. Once you have the five items, bring them to Athena. PoptropicaZeus will appear and steal them. The big jerk! Once this happens, talk to Athena and she will tell you that Hercules will help you. You’ll need to have the magic mirror from Aphrodite because Hercules doesn’t want to have to walk. He’s so lazy!
Getting the Hydra Scale Poptropica

You can see how to do this in the videos, but basically you need to jump up when the Hydra is about to strike. PoptropicaHe will rear one of his heads back to attack and his eyes will bulge out. When this happens, jump up in the air and then try to land on top of his head. That head will get knocked out. When all five heads get knocked out, the Hydra will be asleep and you can click on him to get one of the scales. Poptropica

Leave a Comment

N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

Related Articles

More Articles by J.T. Young

More Articles From The Public Policy

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/03/politics-economics-and-green-j

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Gallup: Veterans Prefer Romney

W. James Antle, III | 12:48PM

Markos Moulitsas is Scum

Quin Hillyer | 10:35AM

Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Memorial Day Edition

W. James Antle, III | 5.27.12

An Honor Flight Story

TAS Staff | 5.26.12

WaPost Criticizes Romney's Lack of Rhythm

Aaron Goldstein | 5.25.12

Tom Coburn on the Debt 'Disease'

Vivien Chang | 5.25.12

SPONSORED LINKS

Special Feature

Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:

A Time for Choosing

James Piereson

The Road from Serfdom

Stephen Moore and Peter Ferrara

FLASHBACK TO: 1984

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Meet the Flukes!

F. H. Buckley | 5.25.12

In Search of Muhammad

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi | 5.25.12

The Wisconsin Turning Point

Peter Ferrara | 5.23.12

Follow Me

Jay D. Homnick | 5.25.12

Age and Kyl

Quin Hillyer | 5.25.12

How About the Record of DOE Capital?

William Tucker | 5.25.12

In a Class of His Own

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.25.12

The Great Debate

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 5.24.12

ADVERTISEMENT