The Green Economy Is Anything But
Joel Kotkin writes at City Journal on California's green economy and the effects of draconian environmental rules (like standards for being "carbon neutral") on the economy as a whole:
Michael Grunwald recently wrote in Time, for example, that venture capital, high tech, and, above all, "green" technology were already laying the foundation of a miraculous economic turnaround in California. Though there are certainly opportunities in new energy-saving technologies, this is an enthusiasm that requires some serious curbing. One recent study hailing the new industry found that California was creating some 10,000 green jobs annually before the recession. But that won't heal a state that has lost 700,000 jobs since then.At the same time, green promoters underestimate the impact of California's draconian environmental rules on the economy as a whole. Take the state's Global Warming Solutions Act, which will force any new development to meet standards for being "carbon-neutral." It requires the state to reduce its carbon-emissions levels by 30 percent between 1990 and 2020, virtually assuring that California's energy costs, already among the nation's highest, will climb still higher. Aided by the nominally Republican governor, the legislation seems certain to slow any future recovery in the suffering housing, industrial, and warehousing sectors and to make California less competitive with other states. Costs of the act to small businesses alone, according to a report by California State University professors Sanjay Varshney and Dennis Tootelian, will likely cut gross state product by $182 billion over the next decade and cost some 1.1 million jobs.
It's sad to consider the greens such an impediment to social and economic health. Historically, California did an enviable job in traditional approaches to conservation--protecting its coastline, preserving water and air resources, and turning large tracts of land into state parks. But much like the public-sector unions, California's environmental movement has become so powerful that it feels free to push its agenda without regard for collateral damage done to the state's economy and people. With productive industry in decline and the business community in disarray, even the harshest regulatory policies often meet little resistance in Sacramento.
In the Central Valley, for instance, regulations designed to save certain fish species have required 450,000 acres to go fallow. Unemployment is at 17 percent across the Valley; in some towns, like Mendota, it's higher than 40 percent. Rick Wartzman, director of the Peter Drucker Institute, has described the vast agricultural region around Fresno as "California's Detroit," an area where workers and businesspeople "are fast becoming a more endangered species than Chinook salmon or delta smelt."
They will care as soon as there are not enough Californians left to pay their pensions. In the meantime, you can just shut up and pay up.
New York has the same attitude. I'm gone, when my job leaves or I retire, whichever comes first.
MarkD at August 11, 2010 5:43 AM
I remember seeing reports about the wild fires that cause so much damage in California. Many of them were supposed to have occurred because the "greens" would not allow any controlled burns or clearing of certain areas and insisted that all naturally occurring fires (such as by lightning strike) be stopped immediately. Then, when a fire did start (as had to happen eventually), it quickly got out of control and caused more damage than would have happened earlier.
Sabba Hillel at August 11, 2010 6:16 AM
Yeah, just dump those mine tailings into the river. Nothing should interfere with someone making a quick buck!
Steve H at August 11, 2010 9:13 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/08/11/the_green_econo.html#comment-1741818">comment from Steve HSteve, I've been an environmental person, and even an activist for the environment, since before it became cool to be that. That's not what's being advocated here, somebody making a quick buck by polluting.
Amy Alkon at August 11, 2010 9:16 AM
"the legislation seems certain to slow any future recovery in the suffering housing, industrial, and warehousing sectors"
Yeah! Bury the California Warehousing sector. I'm a Nevadan. Storing goods for California businesses at low tax rates is pretty much all we have left now that you guys let the native population build casinos close to your homes. Well that and whores.
And SteveH: In my recollection of 4th grade history, it was the farming interests of the northern Sacramento River Valley that got the hydraulic mining in the foothills shut down because the sediment from the tailings was ruining the rivers downstream and flooding farm land. Sometimes the best environmentalists are hunters and sportsmen and, gasp, corporate interests.
For years I made my own biodiesel and dreamed of solar panels on my roof. Then my house lost half it's value and the equity that was going to pay for the solar installation. It's not a good idea to focus on environmental and conservation programs to the detriment of the economy as a whole. Sooner or later we won't be able to squeeze any more from the productive part of the economy to use for conservation projects.
smurfy at August 11, 2010 11:12 AM
On top of all that, it is possible that the Government infusion of capital into the "Green" economy is stifling the Commercial market for alternative energy.
An article about a new exoskeleton the military is testing made me remember an article several years ago about a small fuel cell stack that was comparatively inexpensive, and they had incorporated it into a "Bicycle" (what we would call a moped). So I got to looking for possible expansions of that, and the only fuel cell vehicle articles I could find less than 4 years old were either about military applications or else this ONE Honda fuel cell car that is being leased in some small part of Southern California (geographic limitation due to the unavailability of Hydrogen fuel stations).
Oh, there are a few suppliers of fuel cell products out there, but they all seem to cost more for the same output as the Bicycle-driving cell (about 1500W) than the entire Bicycle cost, if I remember the original article I read about it. The Fuel Cell Store (fuelcellstore.com) has 100W Fuel Cell stacks for upwards of $4000! I suspect there's no incentive to bring down costs because people get Govt assistance for "Green" installations.
WayneB at August 11, 2010 11:52 AM
One reason for the draconian energy code is the shoddy nature of most modern construction.
There's one quote where I differ:
"virtually assuring that California's energy costs, already among the nation's highest, will climb still higher."
That's only if you get your energy from the utilities instead of making your own via solar, wind, etc. That's the idea behind "Net Zero Energy" homes. They are still tied to the grid, and when the home produces more than it needs, that power is fed back to the utilities for credit.
Of course installing such a system requires financing (as for a car) or incentives (the much ballyhooed Federal tax credits and state incentives). And, here it's also an incentive to create more efficient homes, because that will reduce the size of your solar array.
However, most people don't stay in their homes for more than a few years and are reluctant to invest in long-term infrastructure.
vi at August 11, 2010 1:54 PM
The war against dams is also likely to do California some serious harm.
david foster at August 11, 2010 3:25 PM
You'll have to excuse Steve, he's watched too much Captain Planet.
The "Green Economy" is just as much a lie as Anthropogenic Global Warming.
If the government has to offer subsidies or tax its competitors to make it affordable, then it's not economically viable.
brian at August 11, 2010 6:37 PM
vi, the problem is that in most parts of the U.S., such systems will not pay for themselves before they wear out and have to be replaced. Have you ever noticed that all model solar and "green" houses are in either Arizona or Southern California? They do demonstration projects there, and then try to pass it off as something everyone should be required to have, when the truth is that in most of the rest of the U.S. it'll be an expensive boat anchor for 6-9 months out of the year.
Cousin Dave at August 12, 2010 9:39 AM
Leave a comment