June 16, 2008
Environmental Mania Claims Jobs
Something has seemed forced — in a "just a bit too perfect" way — about the promise of "green jobs" as some sort of savior of our economy. Ben Lieberman suggests that, even if such jobs do proliferate, they don't match up with the number of jobs lost to the larger ecological zeitgeist:
According to a study conducted by the Heritage Foundation, the bill would cost half a million manufacturing jobs by 2018, 1 million by 2022, and more than 2 million by 2027. Of course, most of these displaced workers will eventually find something else to do, but often at lower wages.Some proponents claim that new "green collar" jobs would make up the difference. For example, there will be more work at solar-panel manufacturers and other industries helped by the bill. But these jobs will be swamped by the number of those lost. The Heritage figures are net of any manufacturing jobs gained, and also exclude blue-collar jobs likely to be lost for reasons unrelated to the global-warming bill. ...
To add insult to injury, as many households struggle with layoffs and shifts to lower-paying jobs, they also will have to endure higher prices for electricity, natural gas and gasoline thanks to this bill — a costly double whammy.
All for the promise of an ultimately minor benefit to the environment, if any. As some of us have been unable to avoid noticing, however, "green" is more of a religion than a considered reaction. It brooks no dissent and tabulates no costs, but permits the insertion of all manner of prior political preferences.
Justin,
I couldn't agree more with your last point, which I also think has been under-analyzed. While the world has become more secular and less "religious" in the traditional sense, the human desire for transcendence has not disappeared. Increasingly, environmentalism (or perhaps neo-animism) seems to be giving sexual activity and material consumption a run for their money among those who seek transcendent experience outside the realm of religion.
And now they've got Obama too.
Posted by: John at June 16, 2008 12:34 PMHey now. The Republicans have McCain. He may not be Jesus but he's just as old.
Posted by: Greg at June 16, 2008 12:47 PM Environmentalists: The new evil (when did they replace union members?).
I guess the conservative evangelicals who have broadened their agenda to the environment are the new infidels.
Justin accepts without question the findings of right wing funded ( and possibly in some cases industry funded) groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Hoover Institute. Who funds them and why should be questions asked of all think tanks including anchor rising.
Just as we should scrutinize the funding sources of the studies that say human are causing global climate collapse.
Posted by: Greg at June 16, 2008 3:20 PMGreg,
Do you feel terribly conflicted most days or is it all very clear to you? Just wondering.
Green jobs pushers are just the latest in a long line of people who like to claim that their preferred government action is actually free. See also: "Tax cuts pay for themselves" and "Universal healthcare would be cheaper."
oh, and "minimum wage doesn't cause unemployment." I forgot about that one.
Posted by: Mario at June 16, 2008 4:56 PMConflicted. Ultimately I tend to vote Republican because they keep us safe and keep our taxes low and our government small. This last administration has f&#%@d that up so much I don't know which way is up anymore. Hence the Obama support. When all else fails, switch sides.
Posted by: Greg at June 16, 2008 6:05 PM"Justin accepts without question the findings of right wing funded ( and possibly in some cases industry funded) groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Hoover Institute. Who funds them and why should be questions asked of all think tanks including anchor rising."
We get funding?? Where's my cut been all this time?
Phil, first of all, it doesn't take much to determine that the case for anthropogenic global warming is pretty flimsy (and, conversely, that if we are causing global warming, the price to stop it would be draconian). Secondly, lots of money goes into the promulgation, propping up and propagandizing of the theory of AGW. As Greg said, isn't the source of all that money - and, more importantly, who determines how it gets disbursed - also interesting and important?
Posted by: Monique at June 16, 2008 10:28 PMMonique
The debate about the size and scope of the effect of human activity on the planet is ongoing. The motives of all in the debate should be questioned. Groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Hoover Institute are funded by a rather small number of right wing indivuals and corporations and have now poisioned political and cultural debate since the 1970's and 1980's.
The fact that Justin used both these groups as sources for his two seperate posts spurred my comment.
Did anyone catch all that media coverage last month of thirty-thousand academics that disputed the effects of man-made global warming?
Me either.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Posted by: JP at June 17, 2008 7:44 AM