Yeah, now they tell us
(Fish Wrap) GREEN jobs have long had a whiff of exaggeration to them. The alternative-energy sector may ultimately employ millions of people. But raising the cost of the energy that households and businesses use every day — a necessary effect of helping the climate — is not exactly a recipe for an economic boom.
No! The hell you say!
The rest goes into all sorts of schemes to attempt to create a green economy, including things like cap-n-tax and all the other energy and economy killing measures, which should be sparked by *surprise!* Big Government.
BUT even largely successful mandates, like the one on autos, often bring little-noticed costs. So environmental economists are watching to see if Mr. Obama will also take steps to keep economic growth at the center of his climate policy, by attempting to regulate existing power plants with market-friendly permits.
When has Obama cared about the economy in the first place, outside of a few special interests who vote D and donated to Dems?
The two sides in the climate debate have spent recent years offering dueling — and dubious — economic claims. Switching to more expensive, cleaner energy does not promise a free lunch of more prosperity and a healthier planet. But it also does not need to result in stagnation. A federal climate response brings a mix of costs and benefits, and the specific policies that Mr. Obama and Congress pursue will help determine the balance.
Regarding the bold portion, then what’s the point if it won’t provide benefits? Oh, right, bigger and bigger Big Government control over people, companies, and economies. Next paragraph.
In the end, the strongest economic argument for an aggressive response to climate change is not the much trumpeted windfall of green jobs. It’s the fact that the economy won’t function very well in a world full of droughts, hurricanes and heat waves.
Did Climastrologer David Leonhardt just get done telling us that “green energy” might not create a healthier planet?