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.
