Recently in the NYTimes’ via GigaOm, David Erlich drops the knowledge on the alleged infinite job-creating possibilities of the new “smart” energy infrastructure thingy.
A new energy-efficient infrastructure could be coming to the U.S. with the new administration, and up to 280,000 new jobs could be created from the deployment of smart grid technology alone.
Wow! Who knew “creating” that many jobs could be so simple?
But nevermind my skeptical opinion of the magical job-berthing properties said to be present in our president-elect’s very core. What concerns me firstly is the certain potential for waste, fraud and corruption, i.e. boondoggles for buddies(or just plain boon doggles). We are talking billions added to the billions (trillion) already promised for bailouts and current boondoggles. Where is all this cash going to come from?(YOU) Oh yes, we have a printing press!
Secondly, I am concerned with the obfuscation going on here in terms of well, terms. ’Green’ became just way too, not sexy, or hip like it was say last year. And besides, people are just sick of being (or being told to be) green. We are like all greened out (plus Wal Mart is doing green so, its not cool). But when people say let’s be smart, or you get to say ‘I am smart’ or just allow yourself to be ‘smart’ then that’s all kinds of wonderful. Marketing, they pay a lot for it. Its like convincing guys that hot girls will simply appear if you drink ‘this’ beer. Or convincing girls that ‘these’ jeans definitely make you look thin and beautiful. Definitely. And you can never be too smart, right?
The global warming community have suggested for a while now that, given the almost-certain change in US administration policy on global warming (remember John McCain’s position), the conference of the Kyoto Treaty parties in 2009 at Copenhagen would result in a sea change in global action on greenhouse gas emissions. Copenhagen would produce a new treaty, son-of-Kyoto, that would have full US participation, set stringent and enforceable emission limits aimed at getting the world to the sort of emissions levels some scientists demand, and start to involve the developing world in emissions reductions.
This is not going to happen.
For a start, it looks like US policy is going to concentrate on getting a domestic settlement in place before agreeing to any international action other than the traditional “agreeing to agree.” Secondly, with the world in financial chaos, governments are going to look askance at any possibility of deep emissions cuts in the short term because they know how costly that will be (the recent EU agreement – in actuality an agreement for just 4% cuts by 2020 – is a great example). This will make the drastic emissions cuts supposedly necessary in the medium-term well-nigh impossible to achieve. Finally, developing countries have consistently stated that they will not take on any emissions reductions, demanding the developed world move first. Yet even if the developed world reduces its emissions to zero by 2050, the developing world will have to keep its emissions at around today’s levels to meet just a 50% global reduction by 2050. That represents a reduction from expected developing world emissions of 57%. To meet the 80% reduction demanded by most scientists will require a severe reduction in emissions from today’s levels that represent widespread energy poverty.
So despite the optimism, a genuine international agreement looks some way off. Copenhagen will doubtless be sold as a triumph, but in reality the world will be no closer to a genuine, binding international agreement than it was in 2001.
In his Examiner column today, former CEI Brookes Fellow Tim Carney explodes the myth of AIG as a stalwart defender of free markets that caved in at the sight of federal dollars coming its way:
AIG in 2007 joined the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (US-CAP), a group whose purpose is to lobby for federal restrictions on greenhouse gases. Specifically, US-CAP lobbies for a scheme of mandatory federal caps on greenhouse gas emissions with tradable emission allowances—a “cap-and-trade” policy pushed hard by Enron before that firm’s collapse in 2001.
As part of its climate change strategy, AIG also joined the Investor Network on Climate Risk, which AIG describes as “focused on the financial risks and investment opportunities posed by climate change.” But this network is not, precisely speaking, focused on how climate change might create new risks or opportunities. Rather, it addresses risks and opportunities created by legislation passed in the name of addressing climate change.
Sadly, AIG is not alone. We’ve seen this before.
For more on the Climate Action Partnership, see here.
For more on the Investor Network on Climate Risk, see here.
Will Wilkinson had a very nice comment on NPR’s Marketplace Morning. I once had an economics professor who started off his course by explaining that economics is the science of happiness, how to maximize happiness, and this comment reminded me of this.
I also thought about the argument from Vaclav Klaus at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change where he said:
“I am afraid there are people who want to stop the economic growth, the rise in the standard of living (though not their own) and the ability of man to use the expanding wealth, science and technology for solving the actual pressing problems of mankind, especially of the developing countries. This ambition goes very much against the past human experience which has always been connected with a strong motivation to go ahead and to better human conditions.”
But back to Wilkinson, here is an excerpt from his speech, but spend the five minutes to listen to his entire commentary. It will be a feel good moment worth 5 minutes of your day.
“Now, if you’re forced to choose between a rewarding job and a lot of money, choose the rewarding job. Happiness research doesn’t say you should aim to be wealthier. What it says is that, if you hold everything else constant — the richness of your relationships, the joy of your work — a little more money tends to makes us feel a little bit better.
But the corollary for politics is that economic growth and public happiness tend to move in the same direction. The political choice to put a brake on growth is not the social equivalent of choosing a lower-paying, but more meaningful job. It’s the choice to make tens of millions of people slightly less happy than they otherwise might have been.
Maybe something is worth that cost. I just can’t imagine what it might be.”
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 