Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Obama, climate change, "greenfare" and economics
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, December 04, 2008

In a bit of a welcome to president-elect Obama those gathered in Poland at a climate change conference have made it clear that the US must make much more drastic cuts in it's emissions that it plans:
Delegates from China and India told Reuters at the Dec. 1-12 talks that they welcomed Obama's plan to cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 compared to less ambitious goals set by President George W. Bush. (Emissions are now about 14 percent above 1990 ).

But they say Obama isn't going far enough.

Developing nations want all developed nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions by far more. That, they say, is the condition for the poor to start slowing their own rising emissions from factories, power plants and cars.
In other words, if the US (and other "developed" nations) doesn't agree, no deal.

Obviously that would be fine with me. But I get an icky feeling that the incoming Obama administration will want to be "collegial" with the rest of the world and will cave to their demands. Destroying your economy is how you "change" how the world perceives you, I suppose.

In the meantime, the highly touted "green jobs" Obama promised which supposedly will help economically are getting some scrutiny, and they aren't at all as promising as some would like you to think:
Nowhere is it mentioned that these "green-collar jobs" would be terribly costly, and that the planned "investments" are really just subsidies. And, as we know, things that require subsidies aren't competitive in the
market, and thus aren't profitable.

Claims that such "investments" will create five million jobs are false. It's likely more jobs will be killed than created due to higher costs and increased inefficiency of the U.S. economy. A recent report from the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation found that limiting
CO2 emissions under recent proposed legislation would destroy 900,000 net jobs.

Spending money on projects where costs exceed benefits simply to "create jobs" is a bad idea. Taking capital from productive uses and redeploying it to politically popular but nonproductive uses lowers productivity by paying those with "green jobs" more than their output is worth. It's not
welfare, it's "greenfare."
An example of these "jobs" is offered here:
The loosely knit coalition is advocating for what Hendricks calls a “green recovery” stimulus that would create jobs with an eye toward conserving resources and reducing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal and oil.

School repairs, for example, could be required to meet green building standards, including low-energy boilers and weatherization. Transportation spending could emphasize public transit, and support for new power sources such as wind and energy could go hand in hand with spending on an efficient electricity superhighway.

Ideas include $2 billion in spending on public transit to reduce fares and expand service, $5 billion in renewable-energy bonds for consumer-owned utilities, $2.5 billion to buy and scrap old polluting cars, and $900 million to help weatherize 1 million homes.
I especially enjoyed the idea of expanding public transit service while reducing fares. Sounds like Amtrak to me.

Yup - the future's so bright, I have to wear sunglasses.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

As I said in another post a couple weeks back, any green economy capable of producing five million jobs must cost enough to fund five million jobs. I don’t know how many people are energy workers today since I can’t find a quick link, but I don’t think it’s anywhere near 5 million.

Anything that can fund five million workers (and not minimum wage either) is going to be expensive. Human labor is expensive.

The math isn’t just suspect, it’s insane. No evidence of any comprehension of economics whatsoever.
Written By: Jeremy Bowers
I have a great idea for a commercial for 2010/2012:

A man is standing in front of a camera. He waves his hand to the people and says, "Hey! Look at the millions of green jobs that President Obama created! Hundreds of thousands of jobs, millions of jobs, that he promised in 2008!"

[Then, show a clip from the 2008 campaign showing Obama promising this.]

"And where they? Right here!"

[Man waves hand, as camera pans back and shows an empty field.

"Barack Obama sure delivered on that promise! Look at all these happy people who are working because of him!"

[Tag line runs: "Don’t let Barack Obama lie his way into four more years. Tell him now that four years of empty promises is enough."]

Now that would be a commercial.
Written By: James Marsden
URL: http://

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks