Anyone who understands basic economics already knows that President Obama's $2.3 billion green-jobs initiative was snake oil. Now, thanks to Kenneth P. Green, we have statistics as well as theory to prove it.
In a new article, "The Myth of Green Energy Jobs: The European Experience," the environmental scientist and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute writes, "Green programs in Spain destroyed 2.2 jobs for every green job created, while the capital needed for one green job in Italy could create almost five jobs in the general economy."
Ironically, Obama boasts his initiative "will help close the clean-energy gap between America and other nations." But Green says, "(C)ountries are cutting these programs because they realize they aren't sustainable and they are obscenely expensive."
Obama claims that if we "invest" more, "the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of jobs"”but only if we accelerate that transition."
What could make more sense? A little push from the smart politicians and"”voila!"”we can have an abundance of new good-paying jobs and a cleaner, sustainable environment. It's the ultimate twofer.
Except it's an illusion, as economic logic demonstrates.
"It is well understood, among economists, that governments do not 'create' jobs," Green writes. "The willingness of entrepreneurs to invest their capital, paired with consumer demand for goods and services, does that. All the government can do is subsidize some industries while jacking up costs for others. In the green case, it is destroying jobs in the conventional energy sector"”and most likely in other industrial sectors"”through taxes and subsidies to new green companies that will use taxpayer dollars to undercut the competition. The subsidized jobs 'created' are, by definition, less efficient uses of capital than market-created jobs."
Green is using good, solid economic thinking. Many years ago, Henry Hazlitt wrote in his bestseller, Economics in One Lesson, "The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."
In judging any government initiative, such as Obama's green-jobs plan, you can't look just at the credit side of ledger because the government is unable to give without first taking away.
Worse than that: Inevitably, more is taken away"”destroyed"”than is given because the government substitutes force and taxation for consent and free exchange. Instead of a process driven by consumer preferences, we get one imposed by politicians' grand social designs. It's what F.A. Hayek called "the fatal conceit."
So we shouldn't be surprised that green-jobs programs make energy more expensive. "(F)orcing green energy on the market (is) much, much more expensive," Green said. "Using Spain as a model, when you do the math, you realize that creating 3 million new green jobs could cost $2.25 trillion."
Of course, many people who push "green jobs" want the price of energy to rise so we'll use less. If the environmental lobby wants Americans to be poorer, it ought to come clean about that.
The advocates of such programs don't just misunderstand economics. They have lapsed into a pre-economic mentality. Rulers once believed they could do whatever they wanted, subject only to the physical laws of nature. If things didn't work out as planned, it was because the people had failed to cooperate. But as economist Ludwig von Mises wrote, once economics emerged as an intellectual discipline, "it was learned that in the social realm too there is something operative which power and force are unable to alter and to which they must adjust themselves if they hope to achieve success ... ."
That "something" is inescapable economic forces like the law of supply and demand.
Green is right when he says, "Central planners in the United States trying to promote green industry will fare no better (than Europe) at creating jobs or stimulating the economy."
John Stossel is host of Stossel on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of Give Me a Break and of Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity. To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at johnstossel.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC. DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
that makes 2 snake oil salesmen
Isn't snake oil what you use to keep your skin so scaly, rectal?
Ask Rumsfeld and Cheyne
http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....K8Y2nO_8TM
Care to update us on the unions now trying to block the vote in Wisconsin by occupying the Capitol (illegally) and threatening Republicans?
Here's a nice video: "She came in through the bathroom window."
Imagine. Republicans try to covertly get their bill passed by circumventing normal procedures, and their opponents are up in arms. I guess they thought everyone would just raise their hands in a big "oh well."
I have said from the beginning that this was about political theatre for the Republicans. Every step they take seems aimed at proving that to be true.
What about the compromise that was DIMISSED out of hand by the dems? They asked for this. They got it.
I am not sure "the compromise that was dismissed out of hand" is a fair way to characterize things, but...It is assumed that the Democrats like political theatre and will jump at the chance when presented.
That was the phrase NPR used yesterday to describe it- so I'll use it with confidence that it is true.
MNG said that NPR was beholden to its Republican masters.
LOL, so he won't mind if its federal subsidy is cut, right?
No, he actually used it yesterday as an argument not to cut the funding.
Okay, I'm sure I don't wanna know. I've already got a headache.
Imagine. Republicans try to covertly get their bill passed by circumventing normal procedures, and their opponents are up in arms. I guess they thought everyone would just raise their hands in a big "oh well."
I have said from the beginning that this was about political theatre for the Republicans. Every step they take seems aimed at proving that to be true.
This is likely true, but how is this any different from the typical actions of the Dems?
People tend to understand that visible political action is theatrics, yet they accept it so long as it is supporting ideas they agree with.
YES just like the dems did with Obamacare. By the way the the actions in both cases are legal.
"Republicans try to covertly get their bill passed by circumventing normal procedures,"
So I suppose fleeing to Illinois and hiding out to avoid doing the job you were elected to do is considered "normal procedure", right NM?
Go back to sleep.
I have said from the beginning that this was about political theatre for the Republicans.
Unlike the Union Kabuki Theater Group?
Neu Mejican|3.10.11 @ 12:13PM|# "Imagine. Republicans try to covertly get their bill passed by circumventing normal procedures,..."
Like showing up for work?
Republicans try to covertly get their bill passed by circumventing normal procedures,
Nothing covert about what the Repubs were doing - it was reported on in real time.
As for circumventing normal procedures, I don't see it. The collective bargaining bill could be passed with an ordinary quorum as a stand-alone bill. How is unbundling it from a fiscal bill "circumventing normal procedures"?
Read Full Article »