Peter Van Doren on 'Green Jobs'

[seaplaneguy1]

None of the wind/solar technologies currently on the market can do the job. All will be like yesterday's Desktop computer...outdated...too costly to maintain. 

There is technology in development that will be 1/10th the cost and cut 90% of the co2 out...and be good for "base load" power 24/7, not on/off like current wind/solar.

You are now warned...invest in GE...go bankrupt...

[tailgunner2]

Putting "Save The Earth" retoric aside, our government needs to push "green" energy initiatives for pure finacial reasons. The less oil, natural gas, and coal we use to generate power, the more said fossil fuels we have to sell to other countries, thus send the wealth BACK into our country to not only pay for these "green jobs" BUT pay for other government functions. To hell with saving the planet, the less we burn ourselves, the more we can sell to others. It's THAT simple.

[radck1]

check out

greengeekjobs com

thanks

[hayesism]

I just don't understand why "clean" energy has come to mean low CO2 energy. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Sulfur dioxide, nitrogen mon- and dioxide, methane, carbon particulate, and carbon monoxide all are, but carbon dioxide just ain't.

Not to mention that the CO2 produced in the manufacture of solar panels works out to be 100-200 grams per kilowatt hour -- at least 10 times that of nuclear power and only half that of petroleum.

[suemorphplus2009]

Not to mention nuclear. Nuclear is actually safe, and would employ plenty of people to get it running, and keep it growing. Nuclear energy doesn't even generate the pollutants you mentioned. The radioactive waste can be heavily diluted, or even recycled, as they do in France, to support a nation that is now almost 80 percent nuclear, and very clean. Nuclear does involve emissions in its construction, but it pays back as an immense and non-intermittent power source. We should be on it.

[goose1077]

When it comes to producing somthing you already have--energy--society only bennifits from the elimination of jobs, not creating them. New jobs are best created for new products and services. Taking more people to make what you already have is a step backward.

[BigTimeZissou]

A "green" economy is a fallacy. It's impossible, and it isn't needed. Global warming is a gigantic scam of epic proportions. Eat beef, drive a truck, use incandescent light bulbs, and turn your heat up to 74. Nothing catastrophic will happen from living our normal everyday lives. Don't listen to Al Gore and these other climate scare whackos.

[peoplematter1]

Didn't even need to hear the comments to know exactly what the libertarian freak would say. I think the Cato Institute is comprised of a bunch of neo-luddites who would like to return the United States to the horse and buggy days.

[TracyII77]

Actually that is what the socialists are trying to achieve through their so called environmental movements.

[peoplematter1]

Right - JFK was a socialist because he allocated government resources to the Apollo project. Thank you. Its all so clear now.

[kojirodensetsu]

Libertarian economics actually promote growth.. not hinder it.

[peoplematter1]

Don't you understand that some functions can only be performed by the goverment? Who is supposed to build the highways? Are we all supposed to be home schooled? Is the national power grid really supposed to be private property? What is wrong with you people?

[Seiku]

Home schooling or Government funded education is not the only way to educate people. Roads are supposed to be and could have been easily taken care of by the state and local government. I think you misunderstand alot about libertarianism. The philosophy is not as literal as you think.

[peoplematter1]

I like private schools but not everybody has $500 per month per child for tuition. The interstate highway system is federal. Some jobs are too big for state budgets, eg rebuilding the 70 year old power grid.

I do have a lot to learn about economics and libertarianism and would welcome any serious book recommendations on the subject. Thanks.

[Seiku]

I don't have much knowledge but heres my opinion. I think a libertarian simply wants choices. Not specifically only private schools and home schooling but a chance to try alternative schools if the parent feels their child isn't learning.

For other things I look at it as an issue of money and federal power. I believe the federal government borrows too much and does too much. Of course, libertarians don't like big government. So to me monetary policy needs to be addressed.

[Seiku]

Anyways, alot of the ideas and information I get vary. Works from Milton Friedman, Mises (austrian economics), different organizations and philosophers, random stuff. I'm sure you're familiar with some of them but generally when I listen and read their philosophies I don't think they are too literal. What I mean is I don't think when they say "I want to be able to home school my kid" they want everyone to be home schooled. Some libertarians don't want to eliminate government funded schools.

[burnhippiesforfuel]

"basic economics" by thomas sowell

[harryogre]

I assume you're serious and not just another YouTube troll looking for a fight

A good beginning to understand libertarian thought is "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. It a nice little 180 page book explaining libertarian economics in simple everyday language

You can pick up a hard bound copy from Ludwig von Mises Institute store for about $12. It was written in the 1940's but you'll be amazed at how up to date it is.

Just Google Ludwig von Mises Institute and hit the "store" button

[peoplematter1]

Now we are getting somewhere. I'll look for both of these titles. Thanks guys.

[TheAtheistPaladin]

I particularly don't like this new anti-environmental trend in the libertarian party. If you do enough research, you will realize that what is this "spin" is very biased without cause.

[TracyII77]

Since when have libertarians been for government subsidies of any kind?

[HarryNRubin]

lol yea, this guy doesnt seem to know what a libertarian is

[TheAtheistPaladin]

Rofl, I just don't think you understand what I am getting at. I am not saying anyone should be supported by tax dollars at all.

[rockymountainwest]

"I particularly don't like this new anti-environmental trend in the libertarian party."

I'm not 'anti-environmental,' I'm anti-environmentalism. There's a difference. I don't hate the environment, and I don't want to make it worse. Nobody does. The question is whether or not I think the policies environmentalists advocate are really in the public interest at this point. The answer is an obvious no.

[TheAtheistPaladin]

Yeah, sure they need work but it seems like everybody has this all or none attitude.

"This environmental package won't work. So fuck the environment!" We need real solutions, not just ignoring the bad ones.

[jo232409]

Yeah, there's a solar manufacture starting up here in Portland OR. Something like 60+ new manufacturing jobs. I'd rather have this money going to solar than to failed businesses. America needs to invest in green technology so that we can stay on the cutting edge. If the Chinese invent a green, renewable, and CHEAP form of energy, we're buying it off of them. I'd rather have them buy it off of us. Spare no expense investing, it is the future of American industry!

[TracyII77]

I agree money should not be sent to failed businesses. But the investment in green technology is mostly going to existing green technology and alot of that is produced outside of our country. There is a reason that Portland landed the solar mfg. It already produces semiconducters which are in the decline and laying off jobs. Semiconducters and solar panels use similar mfg. processes, so it is a logical jump. I'm all for better technology, but let's be honest about it.

[rockymountainwest]

"I'd rather have this money going to solar than to failed businesses."

If solar energy was the cheapest and best source of energy to grow the economy, why wouldn't more businesses be using it as the standard? There's a reason that coal, oil, and nuclear are most commonly used. Its simple economics. Our economy and OTHER BUSINESSES need cheap energy to grow and thrive. Eco-friendly energy isn't cheap.

"America needs to invest in green technology so that we can stay on the cutting edge."

...

[TheAtheistPaladin]

As if you don't need factories to make the parts for them? Look at Germany. They are loaded with solar.... and solar FACTORIES.... Gee no job creation there!

[TracyII77]

At the expense of brown jobs. Green jobs are noble, bu they are not NEW jobs. If we were simply expanding our energy network, that would be the creation of jobs. Replacing one energy sector for another, means some people get new jobs, while others enter the unemployment line.

[TheAtheistPaladin]

That is simply not true. It is a growing industry, so its replacement will not be a one-for-one deal. Maybe in the future as the ball gets rolling but not now. As solar, wind, geothermal, bio-fuels, ect grow, I doubt that there will be equal layoff of coal, oil, and so on types of industries. There WILL be new jobs.

[TracyII77]

If it is truely a growing industry, then there is no need for government subsidies. Like I said, green jobs are noble, but they do not ADD jobs to the economy. Yes Portland has seen new jobs come, while cities in Detroit and Ohio have seen them go. I am not saying that green jobs are bad, but don't delude yourself in thinking that they add any additional jobs to the economy.

[TheAtheistPaladin]

I am not saying this new subside package aka "stimulus package" is a good thing. Or that anyone should be subsided. I am commenting on the fact that these "libertarians" take every chance to down play and generally shit all over the green market. To me that seem very biased, and even bordering on propaganda. What are they after by doing this? I don't understand how could it NOT create jobs? If it offers something we don't have... then how couldn't there be job creation?

[rockymountainwest]

"I am commenting on the fact that these "libertarians" take every chance to down play and generally shit all over the green market."

Libertarians are not against ANY business in the free market, as long as that business isn't relying on government money to stay afloat. Nobody is 'anti-green,' get real. Libertarians don't object to green businesses if the green businesses are successful without taxing away everyone else's wealth in order to get there, dragging down the rest of society.

[TheAtheistPaladin]

In principle that is the way it should be but that is not what I am seeing. As if all of a sudden they became "global warming is a hoax" jocks and "going green is a waste of time" butt holes.

[j95lee]

Going green tends to a waste of time. They have some use in applicable situations, but more ofteh than not, they use a lot of energy to create energy. Most Americans will never ride an energy generating bicycle to power a toaster for 2 minutes. Ed Begley is an exception, not the norm.

[TheAtheistPaladin]

Is that what you think it means to go green? LOL, no wonder people are happy to jump on the band wagon. You reduce waste, reuse where you can, and find ways to save energy or produce without pollution. That is it. Nothing funky or weird.

[rockymountainwest]

"In principle that is the way it should be but that is not what I am seeing. As if all of a sudden they became "global warming is a hoax" jocks and "going green is a waste of time" butt holes."

Oh, so because some people think global warming is a "hoax" they're buttholes? Sounds like you're just going to hit up whoever disagrees with you with ad hominem attacks, so I'm doubting if there's any point in even talking to you now. LMao.

[TheAtheistPaladin]

No, "going green is a waste of time" makes you a butt hole. You even quoted me on that....How can you fuck that a up? Pollution has a very real effect that everyone can see. What is wrong in wanting to reduce that effect? Why would that be a waste of time?