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. 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
The argument that 'renewables are subsidised and hence would otherwise operate at a loss', is half-true. What the renewable energy industry needs at the moment, in Australia, is a leg up to deliver the cost saving that can be realised through economies of scale.

The fossil fuel industry however is still subsidised, after fifty years. Look at the aluminium industry for example. Elsewhere, clean-energy advocates have acknowledged the historical role of governments to subsidise 'public goods' - that includes the role governments have played in establishing, or subsidising, certain industries. Think Snowy Mountain hydro.

In addition, the full cost of emissions are not factored into the equation (affecting profit/loss) - these externalities are passed on, to future generations. If we are talking about a level playing field, emissions would be costed at least over $100/t Co2-e.

While not a subsidy per se, its certainly a factor worth considering when using 'clean' economic principles to argue against government support. Zero-emission energy companies simply want a level playing field.

Renewables projects are getting up, despite the fact that most governments still pay them lip-service, and call them niche-industries.

Claims that green jobs are temporary are counter-intuitive. All of the investment that is going into green tech is clearly creating jobs, lots of jobs. Sure 'construction jobs' could be classed as temporary, however the same definition would equaly apply to coal-powered construction jobs. With the potential of back-to-back projects however, the construction industry could have its order books full.

Of course, there's always the argument that we need to do what is required to ensure the survival of the species.
Posted by simon roz, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 3:10:00 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
“The argument that 'renewables are subsidised and hence would otherwise operate at a loss', is half-true.”

It is wholly-true. If they would not operate at a loss, then no subsidy is needed, is it?

“What the renewable energy industry needs at the moment, in Australia, is a leg up to deliver the cost saving that can be realised through economies of scale.”

If that is true, then there’s no need for a subsidy. The only reason for a leg up, is because private capital would make a loss. Therefore the only reason to use public capital, is to try to hide the loss and force someone else to pay for it.

“The fossil fuel industry however is still subsidised, after fifty years.”

Certainly all such subsidies whatsoever should be abolished, both on economic and ecological grounds. No argument there.

But here are governments, having subsidized coal power for at least fifty years, telling us all it is the worst thing in the history of the world, still subsidizing it with taxes, and proposing new taxes and subsidies to fix the problem!

As for subsidies on 'public goods' grounds, the fact is, these handouts remove resources from more productive uses to less productive, more resource-intensive uses.

“In addition, the full cost of emissions are not factored into the equation (affecting profit/loss) …”

This begs the questions (a) why not?, and (b) how we are to know the “full cost”?

If the use of fossil fuel saves a human life, or a population, but risks a life, or population, of some other species at some uncertain future time or place, how is that to be factored in?

Profit and loss do not calculate “full cost”, but only things which are sold and bought against money. Economic calculation is only a means to ascertain the expediency of actions in removing uneasiness in the most practical and economic way. But many things are end values in themselves, such as the beauty of nature, ethical values, helping the disadvantaged, posterity, and so on. They cannot be evaluated in money at all.
Posted by Peter Hume, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 9:33:05 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
However this does not in the least impair the usefulness of economic calculation. No calculation is required to acknowledge these first-order values in full and make due allowance for them.

The fact that the masses prefer to use fossil fuels for purposes that the greens consider unworthy, such as supporting human life, health, enjoyment and reproduction, does not stop the greens from arranging their own conduct in accordance with their own values. All the greens, and everyone who agrees with them, need to do is simply stop using fossil fuels, electricity, paper and so on.

But the greens don’t want to do that. They want everyone else to sacrifice their values under compulsion, and be forced to do what the greens are not willing to do voluntarily, precisely on end values that are incommensurate, and unknowable except subjectively.

They are in no different position, as regards end values, to that of an intolerant religion trying to suppress others peoples’ values and pleasures, relying on an implicit claim of being God’s (or “the planet’s” or “the species”) representatives.

The purpose of economic activity is to produce things that people value to remove a felt uneasiness of some kind. It is not to create “jobs” per se. If it were, we could just dig holes and fill them in again - the intellectual level at which the greens are arguing their case.

“Of course, there's always the argument that we need to do what is required to ensure the survival of the species.”

You haven’t established that.

I once asked my father why the abolition of property rights was not justified to save the world’s population from environmental catastrophe.

That wise old man said: “Environmental problems kill you slowly. Fascists kill you quick.”

I have shown why subsidized energy sources are worse for the environment, in the greens’ own terms. You still have not shown why they are better for the environment, nor how you know.
Posted by Peter Hume, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 9:36:04 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
There is one thing that constantly puzzles me in these arguments about renewables vs. fossil fuels: it's always taken as a given by the renewables lobby that viable renewable energy is just around the corner, but that wicked, amorphous "fossil fuel interests" are actively retarding its development.

My question is: why?

Now, oil companies, for one, may not be the nicest guys in the world, but surely they're not stupid, either?

So, if renewable energy is such a goer, wouldn't the "fossil fuel interests" be all over it like flies on the proverbial? Snapping up the patents, buying out all the R&D, and assuring their prosperity into the future?

Certainly the "fossil fuel lobby" is cognizant that oil *is* a non-renewable resource, and as can be seen in places like Dubai, oil nations are already hedging their investments for an oil-less future. "The Stone Age came to an end not for a lack of stones and the oil age will end, but not for a lack of oil," as Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani noted.

So why wouldn't the fossil fuel folks be investing in renewables, if they're such a sure-fire winner?
Posted by Clownfish, Tuesday, 22 September 2009 11:14:13 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
What fanciful spin! All one has to do to ‘create’ green jobs is to claim certain existing occupations as being ‘green’. In this way, Simon gets out of the dubious honour of having to identify the jobs, if any, that would be ‘created’ by implementation of a CPRS or an ETS. However, the truth of the matter is that if such schemes are implemented, there will be downsizing not only of the carbon intensive industries, but of primary industries and many others that exist by virtue of Australia’s comparative advantage that is enabled by cheap efficient coal-derived energy. The Productivity Commission has concluded that wind turbine energy is at least twice as costly, and solar power ten times as costly, as coal-fired energy, and it should be noted that both those renewable energies are nowhere near as reliable as coal energy. It is a figment of the imagination to think that new green jobs will surpass all of the jobs lost through this downsizing. Perhaps the Greens’ ulterior motive is to train all the displaced employees as slaves, so that they can be used to turn the wind turbines when there is no wind.
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 23 September 2009 4:55:28 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
But Raycom, the fact that green policies may cause human disutility, suffering or death is no proof against them. The greens stand for the instrinsic value of nature over and above human values. This does not apply to polar bears or kookaburras - their use of natural resources is fine. It's human beings' use of natural resources that the greens consider to be an unethical plague on an otherwise pristine scene. Thus the green belief system is essentially opposition to anything that humans value to further their life or their children's life.
Posted by Peter Hume, Thursday, 24 September 2009 5:03:59 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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