Peter Van Doren on 'Green Jobs'

Can government reorient the economy to promote green jobs without consumers, producers and economic performance suffering? Peter Van Doren, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and editor of Regulation magazine says no.

http://www.cato.org/multimedia

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• peter
• van
• doren
• cato
• institute
• regulation
• green
• jobs
• economy
• lou
• dobbs

[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outdated...too costly to maintain.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.

[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?

[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.

[radck1]

check out

greengeekjobs com

thanks

[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.

[peoplematter1]

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

[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

[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.

[burnhippiesforfuel]

"basic economics" by thomas sowell