01 July 2014

There are jobs, and then there are jobs

I left this comment on a Guardian article discussion jobs and climate change:
It helps to pay attention to the DETAILS of these claims:

There will be fewer fossil fuel and more renewable jobs if we switch from carbon, but these jobs are coming from and going into other sectors. There is, thus, a difference between "killing jobs" in the energy sector and "moving jobs" between sectors.

Putting that point aside, there will be MORE jobs in disaster recovery if we carry on burning carbon, but MORE jobs in a thriving economy if we move to an environmentally sustainable path. There is, thus, a difference between jobs that "fix broken windows" (doing nothing to improve our lives) and jobs that "contribute new benefits."

Bottom Line: The jobs discussion changes when you change your perspective.

2 comments:

  1. David
    Suggest you reed economist Charles R. Frank of the liberal Brookings Institution study "Why the Best Path to a Low Carbon Future is Not Wind or Solar Power." What Frank found is that due to higher capacity factors, hydro, nuclear and newer combined cycle natural gas power can reduce as much C02 as wind and solar power but at way, way less cost.
    About 65% of the hours of a year solar power is minimal or zero. About 30% of the hours a year wind power is minimal of zero. And both can occur at RANDOM. The Brookings Institution is partly funded by Dianne Feinstein and her husband Richard Blum.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Wayne -- I've seen that. Absolutely relevant.

    ReplyDelete

Spam will be deleted. Comments on older posts must be approved.
If you're having problems posting, email your comment to me