Mr. Green Links

1.  I am agnostic about fracking.  Seems complicated.  But here we have the opinions of Natalie Merchant and other "artists," whose only qualifications for participating in the fracking debate is an incapacity for self-doubt.  Brought to you as always by the NYTimes, which is careful to provide the full range of views from the mildly wacky left to the completely insane left.

2.  At first I thought this was a hoax.  But it appears to be real.  At least, in the sense that any of the Obama "green jobs" hoaxes are real.  Okay, yes, so the whole "green jobs" thing is a hoax.  But it's a real hoax, not a hoax from "The Onion."  Again, the NYT appears never to have read any actual news.

3.  Not surprisingly, "green jobs" are a significant net cost.  Far from creation, these kinds of "investments" are actually job prevention.  How are you going to save the environment if you always go 'round breaking windows?  The Dub-MOE explains about broken windows.
BTW: Title with apologies to Hugh Brannum.

Brilliant Satire

Okay, at first I was taken in.  But this is actually brilliant satire. 

I mean, it goes through the whole "don't have children" thing, and buy "credits," which is asinine, and often a scam to boot.  So, it could be serious.  But then, the giveaway:  If you really want to be "green," you will need to: 

Slow Down Your Breathing
      It sounds silly, but breathing is actually a major source of atmospheric carbon.  One of the ways you can reduce your Carbon Footprint is to breathe less.  That's right, breathe less!  You're probably asking yourself how that's possible, but believe it or not, yoga is a great way to slow down the metabolism and reduce the need for excessive breathing.  If you're not already into yoga, consider taking classes at your local studio.  Soon, you'll be breathing less, and as an added bonus, feel much less stressed out!

Okay, THAT is funny.  Well played, ma'am.  To reduce your carbon footprint, DRIVE to a yoga studio.  And since you will be having fewer children, you won't be needing to have all that heavy-breathing whoopee, either.  Stop all that "excessive breathing." Brilliant.  Because it's just goofy enough that it COULD be serious. 

(with a nod to the Blonde)

UPDATE:  As Trent M. notes in comments...

"My favorite part: on the "comments and coupons" page there is a coupon for "15% off 1 eco-friendly blunt trauma pet termination."

Support for Green Power Slipping

NYTimes poll finds support for green power slipping, in some cases falling sharply.

Got an email accusing me (!), and "people like me"(!!) for causing this.  Ma'am, I doubt that.

Nod to Anonyman.

Wind Power is Fake

Wow. Even I think this guy is being mean.

Frau Merkel has announced that Germany is going to phase out nuclear power, simply because of the Japanese tsunami. Well, that is like basing water-collection policies in Rhineland-Westphalia on the monsoon cycle of Borneo. As I was saying last week, the Germans have a powerfully emotional attachment to everything that is "green", and an energy policy based on renewables will usually win German hearts. But it will not protect the owners of those hearts from frostbite and death due to exposure, for wind can often be not so much a Renewable as an Unusable, and also an Unpredictable, an Unstorable, and -- normally when it's very cold -- an Unmovable.

We have pointed out a number of times here that wind power is just a fake, feel good thing (unless you are a Kennedy, and want turbines to be somewhere else, to bother the little people, instead of your august Kennedyness).

But you have taken this to a whole new level. Well done, sir.

Some Facts on Green Jobs

Now, I understand that no sensible person actually believes that "green jobs" are going to save the economy.

Saying that we need green jobs is just a way of justifying increased government payments to corrupt shell corporations like Solyndra. I bet the perpetrators of this fraud are actually pretty amused that it worked.

But here are some facts: even if the maximum good things happen, the impact will be negligible. And it is not likely that anything good will happen.

(A nod to @mfbellemare , who is not complicit in my interpretation)

You'll Wonder Where the Green Jobs Went, When You Learn What "Poison River" Meant!

How are those Green Jobs working out for ya, China?

If there is one consistent theme here at KPC, it is that we should be very, very happy to let the Chinese spend themselves into bankruptcy developing alternative energy technology which we will be able either to buy, or to use. Besides, we are doing a lot, more than we should be perhaps, already.

I wish no ill to the Chinese people. But one of the side effects of China's choice to develop "green" technology is that they are killing their environment.

(Nod to Anonyman, who is en fuego, producing lots of carbon)

So near but yet so far

LeBron points us to Daron Acemoglu writing at the HBR blog, saying that he makes "many good points". Indeed, I'd say of the 7 he makes, 6 are good to very good.

However, that last one is a real doozy:

Focus on green technology, the next area that has the best promise of creating a platform for more innovation. Innovations in information and communication technology starting in the 1960s have had a transformative impact on the world economy by creating a platform upon which myriad other technologies and products could be developed. Green technology has the potential to cut carbon emissions, sure, but we also need to transform the way in which energy is delivered, utilized, and monitored. This necessitates innovation and significant investment not only in power generation but also in the electricity grid, in the transport system, and in homes and factories. The United States is lagging behind other countries in these activities. To regain leadership, we need both more and smarter subsidies to research in green technologies and a carbon tax that naturally encourages the use of cleaner technologies and triggers more research to seek such technologies.

First, what standard are we to judge the statement that green technology "has the best promise"? At least give us some reasons why. To me this is more of an article of faith to people than the product of any kind of cost-benefit analysis.

Second, Why does it matter where an innovation takes place? Ideas are public goods. If the Chinese figure out how to somehow make solar power cost effective, why shouldn't we just be happy and use the invention?

It's not about nationalism and competition between nations; innovation anywhere is good for every place that is able to absorb and implement it. It is the global amount of R&D and innovation that we should care about, not whether the US can "reclaim leadership", especially in an area where no one can make money without continual large subsidies.

About the only part of DA's quoted paragraph I agree with is that we should introduce a Pigouvian carbon tax. I'd like to do so in a way that's revenue neutral, but even if it isn't, a carbon tax is probably the simplest and one of the best things we can do for the environment.