The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The future is green > Comments

The future is green : Comments

By Simon Roz, published 21/9/2009

Coal jobs are now a retreating niche, whereas green jobs are a growing mainstream.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
The author does not define green jobs. He also does not distinguish between green jobs that are a result of the operations of profit and loss, and those that are the result of government policy. But this distinction is critical.

If a particular green job does not exist because it could not be done at a profit, then it is done at a loss. Yet how can using *more* resources be said to be better for the environment?

It is not valid to assume that the choice is a simple one between non-green jobs that harm the environment, and green jobs that do not harm the environment. So long as any resource consumption is involved, there is a question, in the greens’ own terms, of harm to the environment. And having made 'good pay' one of the criteria of a good job, there is a need to calculate both economic, and ecological costs and benefits. But how?

Economic calculation in terms of profit and loss is only able to tell us that the consumers considered this or that product more urgent. So far as they considered environmental factors, that is contemplated in their buying, or not buying, at that price. So far as they did not consider environmental factors, that does not answer, but only begs the question of calculation of the ecological advantages and disadvantages.

Ecological calculation must presumably include all the natural resource calculations involved in economic calculation, and then in addition, some way of knowing what is involved in terms of relative scarcity of natural resources, relative value, distribution and abundance of species, and so on. The fact is, no such method of calculation exists.

Since the greens have no method of calculation of ecological values involving a common denominator, and since they also reject calculation in terms of profit and loss as a means of determining the scarcity of resources, the result is calculational chaos.

That is why so-called ‘green jobs’ all around the world are causing greater harm to the environment than even jobs conditioned on the basis of profit and loss.
Posted by Peter Hume, Monday, 21 September 2009 2:10:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, when I say the author doesn't define green jobs, I mean, the author does not say *how* we are to know that a particular job 'helps solve our environmental problems', or not, or makes them worse.
Posted by Peter Hume, Monday, 21 September 2009 2:13:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Both sides of politics have not hesitated to trash Australian industries in the name of ideology over the past few decades.

Howard trashed the sugar industry in the name of his 'free trade' agreement with the US, which even economists were luke warm about, then flew to Tassie and told the dopey forest workers "I won't throw Australian communities on the scrap heap." No-one picked him up on it.

Now they won't phase out an industry in the name of survival, even when it's obvious (except to the likes of Peter Hume) that there will be more jobs involved.
Posted by Geoff Davies, Monday, 21 September 2009 4:37:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I checked a couple of the links. The 'report after report' showing that more jobs will be created than lost closing down polluting industries is a single report commissioned by Greenpeace. Now if I quoted one from the Australian coal industry saying the opposite - with more truth - I would be howled down. Greenpeace is not a distinterested party - far from it. More care with with citations please. Also looked at the link purporting to prove that more investment is going into renewables than fossil fuel. Its an extraordinary claim but possible, I guess, considering the way those things are subsidised. Couldn't see it in the executive summary. Explanation please.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Monday, 21 September 2009 5:13:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The experience in Spain with such jobs is that they are usually either temporary or form-filling, neither of which is particularly productive, they displace real productive jobs and they require massive subsidies to keep those people employed.

Off hand I cannot think of a less attractive idea.
Posted by Snowman, Monday, 21 September 2009 6:22:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the greens are honestly so stupid that they can’t understand the difference between the resource use of a given job, and the resource use of the same job subsidized, then they are not qualified to enter into the discussion. (The resource use of the latter is the resource use of the original job, plus the use of all the resources needed to produce the subsidy.)

It is as if the greens are in a land of magic pudding – you pass a law, and instantly wealth at no cost appears. They should go and study basic economics, or, better still, basic logical thought.

But if they can understand the difference, and they have taken it into account, where is the evidence?

Geoff Davies argument is typical of the quality we are seeing. We need to obey the greens “in the name of survival”, ie we’re all going to boil to death from global warming if we don’t.

And how will we know whether or not what a green job is less than more destructive to the environment?

“It’s obvious.” That’s it. There is no need for rational thought. The greens are just right because they are right, that’s all.

They are failing to understand the first principles of the argument that they themselves are putting forward.

For example, look at the land required for different energy technologies.
Nuclear energy requires one square mile to produce one million megawatt-hours per year, enough electricity for about 90,000 homes. Geothermal energy requires three square miles. Biofuels ethanol and biodiesel require up to 500 square miles to produce the same amount of energy. Natural gas needs eight and petroleum needs 18. Wind farms require over 30 square miles. Coal, on the other hand, requires four square miles, mainly for mining and extraction.

How do the greens figure out which is better and which is worse for “the environment”?
Posted by Jefferson, Monday, 21 September 2009 8:05:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy