DeezRightWingNutz: Creating jobs does not “add value to the economy.”

The work done by the people with the jobs is what adds value. In a more-or-less free market, a job “watching the grass grow” is of no value to anyone, so the pay is zero and nobody does that job. Gummint created fake jobs are just welfare in disguise and don’t count.

I don’t understand why this gets so muddled. You want to maximize output and minimize input (to say nothing of distributional questions). If you spend Saturday afternoon fixing your gutters, the value is in:

1) not getting water dumped on you when you walk under into your house
2) keeping your basement dry by direction water to a rentention pond and away from your foundation, etc., etc.

The value is in the output, the result of the “job,” not the job itself. If your wife tells you that you have a new job to do this weekend, go out in the yard and watch the grass grow, are you happy about that?

“Dear Sir,

Our organization, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, believes that increasing investment in clean coal technology will not only generate new jobs but will also maintain the ones many people already have. There is growth potential in multiple industries: transportation, construction, research and development, production and electricity generation.

Government involvement is entirely necessary, however. There are always risks involved in bringing new technologies to the marketplace, especially on the commercial level. In the case of clean coal, we’re talking about first-of-its-kind technologies.

So, by having the government share the financial responsibilities with companies that are funding these demonstrations, we’re insulating customers and members of the private industry from bearing 100 percent of the risk on those technology advancements.

Lisa Camooso Miller
The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity”

I’m not here to debate climate change, but if you think that adding millions of tons of fossil fuel emissions have no adverse affect on our climate or people’s health, or the environment, well, that’s a pretty bold claim that needs some evidence to back it up.

As for pollution, just the fact that asthma has increased dramatically in the population in the last 20 years is attributable at least in part to pollution should give one pause.

” Current laws do not permit such scars on the landscape, but perhaps you would rather focus on the old days.”

On this, you have it exactly backwards. Current laws actually do permit mountain top removal, and that is the modern way to mine — much more efficient to get coal. It destroys the streams and lakes because of the minerals leached into the waters. Old style mining was actually cleaner because the dust remained in the mine, whereas today it is released into the air.

Sorry, but you seem to dismiss all external costs and effects involved with coal and oil extraction, production and use as negligible. That is preposterous.

This happens to be an area I am familiar with, and I think you are not correct. Fuel cells won’t cut it. The wildest dreams for wind and solar do not forsee it reaching more than 25% or so of demand. Further, since these methods of generating electricity are dependent on situational factors (solar does not work at night) rather than demand factors, there comes the problem of storing the energy until demand requires its consumption – this is a very large cost not often considered.

Randy: “If, as I am, you are concerned that oil and coal contribute to climate change”.

A lot of people are now curious as to the ways in which the earth changes it’s temperature. Ice flows all the way to Cuba would certainly be inconvenient – and this, apparently, has happened in the past. If you are referring to Al Gore’s science fiction novel – well, I did not find it very gripping. Avatar was far better.

Randy: “The pollution alone causes many diseases, from asthma to cancer to birth defects. We have to spend billions to clean up the pollution, and hundreds of billions to treat the people who suffer from the pollution.”

It would be fun to see backup – IN THE UNITED STATES – for your claim. I know that coal fired plants are, now a days, pretty low polluters. My guess is that your diesel Rabbit(and those used by others, plus diesel trucks, buses, and — especially ships) would eclipse emissions from coal fired generating plants. Of course, that does NOT include similar plants in China, India, etc., which are not regulated and are old school, gross polluters. Of course – OUR economy-destroying cap and trade policies would not dent what goes on in those countries, so I guess it’s not relevant to our discussion.

Randy: “Ever seen what they do to the mountains and streams in West Virginia?”

Yep, coal MINING – as opposed to coal consumption – is pretty ecologically unfriendly. Old mines remain as both eyesores and horrific polluters of the local environment. Current laws do not permit such scars on the landscape, but perhaps you would rather focus on the old days.

Further – you DO realize that “green” generating plants are generally located a large distance from the existing power grid – and thus would also require a new feeder from where they are to the nearest grid. This is also called “even more costs”. People also are not often receptive to PowerLink lines … something about living under large magnetic fields. Such cry babies – what, they don’t want to support the health care industry?

A timely piece: today, Alliant Energy is seeking a 13.8% rate increase to cover the cost of installing and operating their new solar plant. The plant only serves, and peak, 130K houses. Maybe stimulus finds can cover this cost, so it won’t really be a cost at all …………

Actually, the technology is already there. But you are right — large public subsidies are often (but not always) required to make the green energy cost effective.

But let’s talk about the public costs we have for oil and coal. The pollution alone causes many diseases, from asthma to cancer to birth defects. We have to spend billions to clean up the pollution, and hundreds of billions to treat the people who suffer from the pollution. (But gosh, if we reduce pollution, and thereby reduce the instances of these diseases, wont’ that throw all those health care workers out of work? I guess it’s now patriotic to become dependent upon doctors and hospitals).

If, as I am, you are concerned that oil and coal contribute to climate change, which in turn will also cost us a lot, then any public subsidies to alternative energy is rather puny. And this isn’t to mention the destruction to our environment. Ever seen what they do to the mountains and streams in West Virginia?

JD: “China and India will buy it — at a lower price, since they’re not competing with our consumers — and use it for lower economic purposes.”

Yup, and their pollution is so out of control that it threatens their economic vitality. It may actually sink their economies if they don’t control it.

We have many many costs involved with burning fossil fuels, and those aren’t reflected in the gas pump or the electric bill. But they are reflected in many other costs. If you really want to weight whether investment in new technology

Let Adam Smith’s invisible hand allocate goods and services.

When that hand appears in the form of a U.S. Navy vessel safeguarding shipping lanes, or U.S. intervention in foreign politics to secure access to oil, or American soldiers stationed overseas to protect a petroleum-rich tyrant, doesn’t Adam Smith go out the window?

The effect of policies to discourage use of “foreign oil” will be increased US unemployment, lower standard of living in the US and the rest of the world, and consumption of more oil since the price will be reduced and the Saudis will pump more to sustain their revenues.

Also… Pursuit of higher efficiency will also run up against Jevons Paradox: when you make consumption of an input more efficient, you inevitably use more of it. Briefly, people with Priuses are less inclined to ride public transit or combine trips than people with Hummers.

Let Adam Smith’s invisible hand allocate goods and services. Government intervention will only distort economic behavior and make us poorer.

Paddy: What constitutes a green job?

Every job “created” by the government is a green job. It says so on the label.

geokstr: Arthur, may I ask if you then would support lots of drilling here, now, and building lots of nukes here, now, if we were to bring our soldiers back from “safeguarding access to the oil” owned by the countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Kuwait, et al? Non? Didn’t think so.

I support (regulated) drilling in and near the United States and (intensely regulated, with criminal penalties a prominent part of regulatory enforcement, so nuclear executives are disinclined to lie about safety issues) nuclear power generation.

Arthur Kirkland says:
On a substantive level, if either speaker points to America’s grotesque, taxpayer– and soldier-shouldered costs of safeguarding access to (and therefore subsidizing) oil across the globe, that will make the debate worthwhile.

Arthur, may I ask if you then would support lots of drilling here, now, and building lots of nukes here, now, if we were to bring our soldiers back from “safeguarding access to the oil” owned by the countries like Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Kuwait, et al?

Non? Didn’t think so.

Cognitive Dissonance: More jobs = winBetter environment = win If (green jobs == jobs that reduce our dependence on foreign oil) (which may be the case under some definitions of “green jobs”), then green jobs = winGovernment efforts to promote jobs — win?Generally, government efforts to promote specifically green jobs (i.e., should govs do this at all)– win?Specifically, recent government efforts been to promote specifically green jobs (i.e., if governments should do this, have recent efforts been effective) — win?I like jobs. I like clean air.
Van Jones FTW!

In order for the govt to subsidize “green jobs” it must take resources out of other areas of the economy. Generally the market will have put those resources where they are the most productive. Thus it is highly unlikely that the green subsidies will create more jobs through action than would have be present anyways.

While a better environment is a good, it must be weighed against the lower material well-being caused by the inefficient redirection of resources.

Government efforts to create jobs that actually make society better off is often a miserable failure.

The most recent highly publicized U.S. effort to promote green jobs (ethanol) has been a miserable failure. Causing almost no decrease in pollution and raising food prices the world over. The stat that I heard a lot but never checked is that filling up a SUV once with ethanol takes enough corn to feed a person in the third world for a year

Having said all that as an economist who is against a lot of the specific proposals for govt green intervention. If I had no knowledge of the debate I would be agreeing with VanJones after the opening statements.

However, if Prof. Morriss is a member in good standing of the Olin-Bradley-Scaife academy, I suppose that for some this would be like rooting for a fraternity brother, with content no match for loyalty.

On a substantive level, if either speaker points to America’s grotesque, taxpayer- and soldier-shouldered costs of safeguarding access to (and therefore subsidizing) oil across the globe, that will make the debate worthwhile.

Dan Weber: A recession is probably the one time you want to simply make jobs for the sake of making jobs. We can hope that the jobs create wealth.

I think that one of my biggest problems with “green jobs” or the projected executive order for the government to require contractors to pay “living” (i.e. union level) wages is that this is in the midst of the greatest recession of our lifetimes. It is not the time to be destroying 2.3 (or so) jobs for every “green job” created. “Green jobs” and contractor jobs paying union wages are luxuries that we, as a country, cannot afford as long as so many Americans are out of work.

In the short-term, though, politicians are elected on jobs, even though it’s by and large a result of our prior wealth creation.

(A recession is probably the one time you want to simply make jobs for the sake of making jobs. We can hope that the jobs create wealth.)

All this blather about “foreign oil” reeks of the assumption of the superiority of autarky over comparative advantage.

Explain?

One that transfers the “green” from the tax payers to the politically well connected.

“But that’s true for every construction project. And construction jobs are not usually considered green. And if, as you say, these construction jobs are “predominately” the green jobs, then there can be no displacement of non-green jobs, as they are two different animals.

Of course, if we were to somehow be able to switch fairly quickly from coal-produced electricity to some new form, like hydrogen based electricity, it will result in many jobs lost in the coal industry. But many more are created because we have a whole new industry that doesn’t exist, and that creates value to the economy.”

Here is the problem with your comment.

The “construction jobs” ‘created’ to build the nuclear reactor *** ARE *** counted as “green jobs” since the reactor is a green source of electricity. Even **** WITH **** the inclusion of these allegedly green jobs, the factual evidence is that 2.3 jobs are lost for every one job created. And then the ‘construction’ jobs end and the destruction of jobs becomes many times worse.

Ushering in a new world order may be a good thing. As you said, email may be deleterious to the USPS but it is a positive addition to our society.

The problem here is different.

Here, the Van Jones of the world are trying to usher in a New World Order that is the world’s best example of Emperor’s New Clothes. Technology does not exist to replace coal fired plants (excluding a vast expansion of nuclear plants and, concurrently, a restart of Yucca Mountain). Alternative energy production is only “competitive” after the inclusion of large public subsidies. More correctly, they are NOT competitive – without even getting into the problem of storing energy for time-varying demand – as occurs in the real world.

Again – who disagrees with “clean”? I wish my car was clean 2 microseconds after each downpour. If I were willing to retain an army of car washers that might, indeed, be within reach. But the cost of that is not warranted by the ‘cleanliness’ I would achieve. I’ll stick with a weekly carwash – though you are free to do as you please. Just don’t impose your decision to retain an army of car wash engineers on MY bank account, thank you.

We can still aggressively pursue energy efficiency while having some eggs in our basket besides just wind and sun.

I recognize that this approach would not radically restructure our economy and lifestyles overnight, or concentrate a huge amount of additional control in the central government, but hey, some of us actually think this would be a feature, not a bug.

But that’s true for every construction project. And construction jobs are not usually considered green. And if, as you say, these construction jobs are “predominately” the green jobs, then there can be no displacement of non-green jobs, as they are two different animals.

Of course, if we were to somehow be able to switch fairly quickly from coal-produced electricity to some new form, like hydrogen based electricity, it will result in many jobs lost in the coal industry. But many more are created because we have a whole new industry that doesn’t exist, and that creates value to the economy.

Ex. The US Post Office is hurting because the volume of mail has decreased significantly, but email has made the economy more efficient and lower costs of communications. The USPS may have to lay off workers and reduce deliveries to less than six days a week. Yet email is just a small part of the internet, which has created thousands of new jobs, and untold millions. I think that’s a good tradeoff.

Crunchy Frog: Paying people to dig holes and fill them up again = more jobs.Not necessarily a good idea.Is the environment better in sub-Saharan Africa, where millions die from malaria each year?Collapse of our economy –> less dependence on foreign oil.Good Thing? No.Government efforts to promote jobs— generally less effective than the free market in promoting jobsGovernment efforts to produce ‘green’ products that aren’t actually green (ie the batteries in electric cars cause more pollution to make than the internal combustion engine creates) and cost more that people don’t want = pointlessVan Jones = EPIC FAIL

This evidences some seriously tortured (water-boarded?!?) logic.

Collapse of our economy –> less dependence on foreign oil. Good Thing? No.

I will unpack the (il)logic of this statement. This statement posits: If our economy collapsed, we’d be less dependent on foreign oil. Economy collapse = bad. Therefore, anything else that results in less dependence on foreign oil is also bad.

This conclusion (“Therefore, anything else that results in less dependence on foreign oil is also bad”) does not follow from the facts preceding it.

Nice troll, though. I couldn’t help myself but to bite.

If Van Jones is the only person The Economist could get to support the “green jobs” position, then shouldn’t that say something about green jobs?

You seem to not have been paying attention.

For every “green job” created by government fiat, 2.3 traditional jobs are destroyed – leading to a net LOSS of 1.3 jobs for every one of these scams. Spain has the greatest experience and history with this – Google and check out the track record for yourself.

Worse —- even those few ‘green jobs’ that ARE created are, predominately, jobs with no longevity, such as construction jobs on a nuclear reactor. Once the reactor is built, the several thousand construction jobs are ended – leaving a residual of only perhaps 600 permanent jobs. If you factor in the temporary nature of the ‘green jobs’, the effect on employment is even worse.

Now – few would disagree that clean is better than dirty. But, if you are speaking about ‘operating room clean’ imposed on everyday living – at a cost of millions of jobs and trillions of dollars of negative impact on GDP, most people would figure out how to deal with simply washing their hands under the kitchen faucet.

Is the environment better in sub-Saharan Africa, where millions die from malaria each year?

Collapse of our economy –> less dependence on foreign oil. Good Thing? No.

Government efforts to promote jobs – generally less effective than the free market in promoting jobs

Government efforts to produce ‘green’ products that aren’t actually green (ie the batteries in electric cars cause more pollution to make than the internal combustion engine creates) and cost more that people don’t want = pointless

Van Jones = EPIC FAIL

Better environment = win

If (green jobs == jobs that reduce our dependence on foreign oil) (which may be the case under some definitions of “green jobs”), then green jobs = win

Government efforts to promote jobs — win?

Generally, government efforts to promote specifically green jobs (i.e., should govs do this at all)– win?

Specifically, recent government efforts been to promote specifically green jobs (i.e., if governments should do this, have recent efforts been effective) — win?

I like jobs. I like clean air.
Van Jones FTW!