The Problem With “Green” Jobs

Say it with me:

You can’t get something for nothing.

It doesn’t matter what that something is - you can’t get it without some effort, without some cost.  It’s impossible.  This brings me to the fiction that government can “create jobs”, especially “green” jobs.

News organizations have been hyping the possibility that Nevada can “create green jobs” for months now.  The Las Vegas Sun had an article in September that said:

A new report from the Center for American Progress says $100 billion in green investment could create 2 million jobs in the U.S., including 15,000 in Nevada.

“In a time when people are hurting, 15,000 jobs seems like a good idea,” said Scot Rutledge of the Nevada Conservation League.

The $100 billion “green economic recovery program” [Remember when that was a lot of money? - DC]- about the size of the recent federal stimulus package - could be paid for by auctioning the right to emit the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, according to the center.

The report says $865 million of that $100 billion would be invested in Nevada. That figure is based on contribution to gross domestic product and population. When natural renewable energy resources and existing favorable state policy toward renewables are factored in, environmentalist said, the investment here is likely to be much higher.

Meanwhile, our legislators talk of using our share of the “bailout money” to create “green jobs”:

Saying the future of Nevada’s economy depends on building a thriving renewable energy industry, Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, D-Las Vegas, introduced legislation to use Nevada’s share of the economic stimulus package to create a “green jobs” training program.

Horsford’s bill, SB 152, would fund both the programs to train the workers and the weatherization projects to put them to work making schools and other government buildings more energy efficient.

Naturally, some business leaders are for it, too:

Business leaders involved in green energy projects met in Reno Thursday to express their happiness with the new stimulus law.

If you’re tired of hearing about green energy and not seeing much of it, they’re right there with you. “We’re trying to push things forward; we’re trying to make things actually happen in a very rapid fashion to build a green economy here in Nevada.”

Rich Hamilton and his company, Great Basin Wind are the ones behind the planned Virginia City wind farm. The much talked-about project is slated to be finished late next year with up to 71 turbines cranking out 200-megawatts enough to power about 60,000 homes.

His company can afford to invest in the project thanks in part to tax incentives offered by the federal government. The stimulus extends those: “We are providing many tax incentives for the private sector to build renewable energy projects.”

It all sounds so good, doesn’t it?  It sounds so pretty - we give some companies some money, they build some windmills, and we all go home happy, with new jobs in construction and maintenance of this stuff carrying us through an otherwise turbulent and messy economy.

There’s just one problem, though, isn’t there?  Where is the money coming from?

That question is at the very core of why government “created” jobs are a myth.  Government creates very little of actual value, meaning that there is very little that government creates that people happily and gladly fork over money for.  By and large, government is funded by taxes, which is the act taking money from someone now, or loans, which is simply promising to take money from someone else later.  Of course, in order to take money from someone, there has to be money to take to begin with.  The way government creates jobs, meanwhile, is by taking the money that it took from someone in the form of taxes or loans and redistributing it to someone else that it thinks will spend the money more wisely.  Again, though, in order for the government to have any money to take to begin with, there has to be some money to take - consequently, the government will either be taking money from someone that’s already providing jobs (businesses and/or their owners) or from someone that already has a job (everyone else).  So, at best, one of two things is happening:

1. The government is transferring money from one business that’s successfully creating jobs, hindering their ability to provide jobs themselves, or…
2. The government is transferring money from you, making your wages worth just a little bit less, with the hope that there are enough people like you to take money from and give to someone else so they can be put to work.

Let’s play with the first option since it’s the simplest to grasp, and fold the second option into it.  Under the absolute best of circumstances, assuming various physical rules don’t apply, since it’s physically impossible for government to create anything of value or wealth, the best that can be hoped for is that government will transfer jobs from one business to another, “better” business, at a 1-to-1 ratio, total wages-wise.  In other words, we hope that, if the government takes $100,000 from one business, it’s able to create $100,000 worth of jobs in another business.  There’s no way for government to add to that $100,000 without taking it from someone else, so there’s no way to multiply this.

Trouble is, this fictional fantasy land doesn’t exist.

To start with, the laws of time still apply in our world, which means that, if government takes $100,000 from one entity to give to another entity, there will be a period of time during which the government will have that $100,000, during which time that money isn’t being put to productive use by anyone.  In short, it’s been effectively removed from the system until the government is ready to hand it out again.  This brings us to our next problem - presumably, somebody is getting paid to account for all of this.  Somebody is getting paid to collect the $100,000 check from one entity and somebody is getting paid to write a check to the other entity.  Suddenly, the government doesn’t have $100,000 to hand out anymore - at best, it might have $90,000, or maybe $95,000.  It really doesn’t matter how much money is left, though - the important thing to remember is that some of that money is now gone from either productive enterprise, never to return.  In other words, there’s friction in the system, which makes sense since, no matter what you move, whether it’s money or blocks of wood or whatever, there is always going to be friction.  Always.  We’re talking “laws of physics” here.

So, right off the bat, we took $100,000 that somebody could use to create jobs or, alternatively, use to buy products from companies that create jobs or just build up a nest egg so we don’t need to pay them unemployment when the unfortunate happens and, assuming there’s no graft, no corruption, no cross-purposes - heck, no human vice - we’re going to give less than that to some other company to create jobs that, presumably, it couldn’t afford to create on its own, which is why we have to give them money to begin with.  (Phew!)  Well, okay - maybe it’s not all bad, right?  I mean, government jobs are still jobs, so it’s not like the $100,000 disappeared - some of it just went to government jobs while the rest went to these other kinds of jobs that we want more of.  Sounds good… or does it?  Keep in mind that, when most people work, they create something of value, meaning they create something that somebody else not only wants but is willing to pay for.  If government created anything of real value, we wouldn’t need taxes - we’d just walk down to our government offices and hand them money voluntarily!  The reason this is important is because, generally speaking, if you want something, sooner or later you’re going to want more of it, and will happily pay for it.  So, if you’re a company producing something that somebody wants, people will voluntarily give you money, which you’ll use to hire more people (creating jobs!) to produce more of that something, whatever that might be.  Do this enough times and that $100,000 can become something far more than that.  If enough people do this, we all have more stuff that we want - more power, more cars, more amusement parks, whatever.  Government, however, doesn’t create anything.  Consequently, any money that’s taken out of the system by the government isn’t used to create anything at all, which means that we end up with less stuff that we want, whatever that might be.

So, to recap, instead of enjoying $100,000 worth of jobs, created by someone that clearly is producing something that somebody wants (otherwise they wouldn’t have $100,000 to take), we instead create maybe $90,000 worth of jobs, created by someone that clearly isn’t producing something that somebody wants, or isn’t able to produce it at a price point that people are willing to pay for, along with $10,000 worth of jobs that fails to produce anything.  Sounds great so far, doesn’t it?

But wait!, you say, what if that person creating $100,000 worth of jobs creates jobs that we don’t really want long term?  I mean, sure, they’re creating $100,000 worth of jobs now, but if they keep doing what they’re doing to create those jobs, we’ll be covered in soot and eaten by the oil grue in no time!  To be perfectly honest, there may be some truth to this.  The trouble here is that environmentalism and “green jobs”, as countless developing countries have proven time after time after time, is a luxury.  Believe it or not, it’s perfectly possible to live without clean air, clean water, or clean food.  Just ask anyone living in Southeast Asia right now, or ask someone who lived in back east or in Europe during the early 20th century.  It’s not pleasant, it’s not healthy, but it’s definitely survivable, and, for most people, if you give them a choice between having a job that gives them a fighting chance to pay for their own food and lodging and preventing them from having that job by inefficiently redistributing money to industries that make you feel warm and fuzzy, they’re going to go with taking that job, even if it’s in the puppy eating industry.  Heck, ask any inner city drug dealer - they already made their choice between “no job” and “job in a morally dubious field that destroys the community”.  If you think people don’t care about the environment now, wait until they can’t pay their sewer bill.

Look, there is a time and a place to invest in “green” technology.  Doing it under the guise of “creating jobs” when doing so requires taking money from industries that are scrambling to keep the jobs they already have is not it.  Tell your legislators to stop trying to “create” anything and just focus on staying out of the way of those that actually are creating goods that people are willing to pay for and creating jobs in the process.

I… Uh… What?

Not that I really needed proof, but there are some truly, heinously nutty people out there:

Emotional Hippies - Crying Over Dead Trees - Watch more free videos

That’s right - they’re crying about dead trees.  Best of all, they want the trees to know they care, because, y’know, trees care what people think.  No, really!  It’s true!  The world really does revolve around us!  If we can just tell the trees that we care, they’ll stop killing us!

Seriously, these people might actually give John Edwards a run for his money.  

(NOTE:  I’m not touching “Lipstick-Gate” or whatever the hell it’s called.  It’s a pointless and stupid news cycle distraction.  I also didn’t see the Gibson interview of Palin, so I’m not touching that, either.  In fact, I’m kind of burned out on politics at the moment - it’s just the same chum churning through the water, over and over and over again, and I’m sick and tired of it.)

Best Topical Headline Ever.

Thank you, Fark.  Thank you.

Then: America must embrace wind power to save the planet. Now: Big Wind is despoiling nature, ruining America’s farms, splitting up families. Soon to come: America must embrace moonbeams and unicorn farts to save the planet

Naturally, the first comment under this thread goes a little something like this:

voltOhm

2008-08-17 01:39:05 PM

Heh.  I’m not sure what more there is to say.  I could insert a rant about how generating electricity and energy is going to require more than simply waiting for the stuff to fall from the sky - I mean, you have to have something to, I don’t know, collect it with, right?  But, that would be incredibly redundant and pointless, so there you go.

Their intelligence is flatulining

I couldn’t make this up if I wanted to…

TALLINN, May 8 (RIA Novosti) - Estonian farmers have received tax notices for methane emissions from their cattle, the country’s opposition party, the People’s Union of Estonia, said on Thursday.

Ruminants produce large quantities of methane gas through belching and flatulence when they digest grass, which accounts for about 15-25% of overall gas emissions, according to different estimates.

[...]

A year after joining the Kyoto protocol, authorities in New Zealand proposed introducing a flatulence tax saying that New Zealand cattle are responsible for 90% of the country’s methane emissions and 43% of greenhouse gas emissions.

We have met the enemy… and it is cow gas. I’m mostly curious about what they hope to accomplish with a tax such as this, other than making gobs of money and applying it towards… cleaner farting cows? Hybrid cows? Hydrogen fuel cows? Of course, we know better - this has nothing to do with global warming or cow gas. It has everything to do with Kyoto providing a certain segment of politicians the cover they need to come up with innovative ways to seize their citizens’ money without having to justify what they’re going to spend it on.

Thank goodness we said no…

Trim a tree, go to jail

From the RGJ, Officials show tree cutters no tolerance:

Douglas Hoffman didn’t like trees blocking his view of the Las Vegas strip. Patricia Vincent was annoyed with some pines in her line of sight to scenic Lake Tahoe.

Both, prosecutors said, used a saw to solve their problem. Hoffman is serving a prison term of up to five years while Vincent, indicted in January by a federal grand jury, faces trial in April.

Both are part of a trend that has officials cracking down — with fines and prison terms — on people willing to cut trees to improve views from their homes or business, often boosting property values as a result.

[...]

On Jan. 25, Vincent pleaded not guilty in U.S. District Court in Reno to charges she hired a company to cut down three old-growth trees, estimated at up to 100 years old, on U.S. Forest Service land to improve her view, said Natalie Collins, spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Nevada.

Vincent faces up to 20 years in prison and a $500,000 fine if convicted, with trial set for April 29.

Vincent’s lawyer, Scott Freeman, called it “highly unusual” for a case like his client’s to be criminally prosecuted.

On the one hand, I can understand fines and jail time for damaging other people’s property, which some of these trees probably are. On the other hand, I do find it amazing that it’s possible to rack up $500,000 in fines for hiring someone to cut down some trees. I mean, the contractor she hired isn’t legally responsible for accepting the job? The trees are worth $500,000? Where does this number even come from?

The quote that really puts this into perspective, though, is here:

At Tahoe, some have been highly critical of government’s go-tough policies when it comes to cutting trees.

One was Melvin Laub, a Northern Nevada lawyer sued by TRPA in 2002 after he and a neighbor trimmed some pines to improve views, agency officials said.

Laub ultimately settled the case for $7,000 in an arrangement in which he did not admit liability. But before doing so, Laub attacked an agency he said “picked on me” because of his high profile.

Laub also attacked a regulatory approach he described as unnecessarily heavy-handed.

“It’s an offensive thing,” he said at the time. “All I’ve done is trim three small trees.”

Environmentalists counter that land-use regulators at the lake must be aggressive when it comes to anyone harming trees to better their view.

That’s particularly true at a time when some tree-cutting regulations are being relaxed to decrease fire danger around the lake, said Rochelle Nason, executive director of the League to Save Lake Tahoe. One practice is supportable, the other is not, she said.

“What we very much oppose is the removal of healthy trees solely for the purpose of opening up view corridors for homes,” Nason said.

When that occurs, Nason said, the rustic beauty of Tahoe that so many people enjoy is put at risk.

“The whole feel of the area changes,” Nason said. “People come to Tahoe to get away from urbanized areas. They don’t want that scenic beauty lost.”

It’s like the ultimate homeowners association run amok. I shudder to imagine what would happen if somebody painted their house one of the non-approved colors…

(Look, I’d be more sarcastic about this, but I just learned that the cappuccino I got from the gas station is nothing more than flavored water - there was no coffee in there. I’m barely seeing color at this point.)

Global Warming Day!

I’m posting a lot because I called in sick for work today, and I have to kill my day somehow.

Let’s talk global warming.

Rule number one of talking about global warming is:

Don’t openly admit that you think that anyone that disagrees with you is an idiot.

Rule number two of talking about global warming is:

Most people want to live. Consequently, if you start claiming that the Earth would be better off without us, you will be considered a lunatic. This is because nobody will care about the Earth if they’re not here to enjoy it. People care about themselves and their families a lot more than they care about a spheroid with a 25,000 mile diameter that was doing a wonderful job of killing our ancestors off until about 150 years ago.

Rule number three about talking about global warming is:

When humans talk, we exhale carbon dioxide, which is widely considered to be a greenhouse gas. When we travel, we usually travel in vehicles that produce a lot of carbon dioxide. Consequently, attempting to solve global warming by traveling to a set destination to talk about global warming is somewhat akin to attempting to solve unwanted teen pregnancies by sending teenagers to clubs and providing them with free alcohol.

Rule number four about talking about global warming is:

When you start making up random buzzwords to discuss your position, expect marketing departments to latch on to them like a rabid pit bull grabbing a six-year-old’s leg and start making up their own definitions.

Finally, rule number five about talking about global warming is:

No matter what you say, pro or con, somebody is going to argue with you about it.

That is all.

Competing special interest groups

You have a mine site. It’s so dirty that it’s declared a Superfund site. There’s mercury and other heavy elements all over the place, they’re getting in the ground water, they’re getting people sick… clearly, something must be done. So, the EPA steps in and clears away all of the contaminated soil. Good job, right?

Not if you’re a Native American - courtesy of the San Francisco Chronicle. According to the article:

For decades, young members of the Elem Pomo tribe have broken out in skin rashes and elders have suffered kidney failure.

The Elem Pomos’ 50-acre reservation is adjacent to the Sulphur Bank Mine, one of the nation’s most polluted sites, and some Pomos believe the tribe’s health problems may be related to the federal government’s use of the mine’s toxic tailings to build reservation roads and house foundation pads 37 years ago.

Last year, after more than a decade of regulatory delays, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cleaned the contaminated soil and rock from the reservation and stabilized the mine site.

Yet many of the tribe’s 300-plus members are dissatisfied with the $20 million cleanup project, saying the EPA’s excavations may have damaged archaeological sites in violation of the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act.

The cleanup removed thousands of cubic yards of toxic waste, improved roads and water systems, provided five new homes and significantly reduced pollution from the mine site. But tribe members say the EPA ignored their demands to modify the work plan, exacerbating the archaeological damage.

Long story short, the EPA cleaned away the dirt that made it where the people would stop getting sick, thus making it possible for them to create new history, but, in the process of doing so, they may have cleared away some archaeological evidence of the tribe’s history… because, well, the open pit mine didn’t do that already. How much does the tribe want in compensation?

Parker said case law suggests a guideline for assessing damage to archaeological sites: $10,000 for every cubic meter of disturbed material.

“By my calculation, that amounts to about $70 million,” he said.

This brings up a wonderful quote from Atlas Shrugged that immediately pops into mind:

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.” (’Atlas Shrugged’ 1957)

Amusingly, the government is even fighting itself now - is environmentalism more important than preserving some arrowheads? Is the desire to preserve every last vestige of history more important than expediently removing toxic chemicals from your backyard? Which is more important - your past or your future?

I suppose when you have no future, you have to cling to the past.