Economist Debates: Green jobs

Economist Debates: Green jobs - According to this post, a majority of readers support a government effort to develop green jobs. This is a good thing. It is important to keep the effect that we have on the environment in mind as we go about our daily business. But it is not enough. We must also find a way to reduce our consumption....period.


We have entered into a period in our history that will result in a continual reduction in our ability to extract resources from the earth's supply for the forseeable future. There will simply be less to go around as supplies dwindle and population (at least for awhile) continues to rise. In short, the days of growth in consumption are over. Somehow, we must find a way to wean ourselves off of our consumptive behavior if we are to make an acceptable journey into our future.

I would like to see society recognize that this is the case but I seriously doubt that it will happen. We are hooked, plain and simple. We know what we want and we will try to find a way to get it until the day we can't. Let's start thinking about an identity for a new stingy (and green) society. It will have to be invented from scratch. It has been a long time since it was last needed.

The Chamber of Commerce vs. Climate Science

William Kovacs, the US Chamber of Commerce's vice president of environment, technology and regulatory affairs, last year famously called for a "Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" on climate change.

As much as we need to find a way to curtail our use of hydrocarbons, this article points out why we probably will never solve our energy/climate problems. Our economy is based on the free flow of cheap energy. In a very real sense, all wealth (in modern society) can be traced back to the use of oil. The owners of that wealth, and those who stand to accrue more wealth as additional oil is burned in the future, are going to fight any efforts that might limit that oil consumption. Because these are the same people that hold all of the power cards in today’s capitalistic, free market world, I think we will not see any significant constraints placed on our use of oil.

It is too bad because all of our real problems are also related to the burning of oil. We are approaching a limit to the amount of oil that can be extracted from this old Earth’s crust and, at the same time, to the amount of residue, from burning oil, that can be absorbed by Earth’s atmosphere without critically disturbing the habitat we all depend on for life. We should be backing off in our use of oil (and other hydrocarbons by the way) in any case.

Wouldn’t it be smarter to spend our creative energy trying to devise a way of life that will not depend on oil, but rather sustainable methods, for the basics of life such as heating, transportation and food production leaving what is left of our hydrocarbon stock as a legacy to future generations. There are some things, such as medicines and plastics, that petroleum can provide that aren’t easily replaced. There are probably many other things yet to be found. It may not be possible to come up with a hydrocarbon-free alternative lifestyle that is acceptable to the vast numbers of people now living and projected to be living in the near future. We need to try, though, because the present lifestyle will certainly not be around for long.

The Chamber of Commerce vs. Climate Science Mother Jones

Population Taboo – Bid It Adieu!

The cultural taboo on discussing overpopulation renders politicians, scientists and other opinion leaders reluctant to mention population when discussing both causes and solutions of modern challenges.

This is a good thought but I don’t think I give it much of chance for success.  Population control is very much like abortion.  There is absolutely no middle ground.  If the scientists speak out they will merely be ignored or, worse, scorned.

Population Taboo – Bid It Adieu! « GrowthBusters

A Decade of Enormous Deficits May Alter American Politics and Power

But the second number, buried deeper in the budget’s projections, is the one that really commands attention: By President Obama’s own optimistic projections, American deficits will not return to what are widely considered sustainable levels over the next 10 years. In fact, in 2019 and 2020 — years after Mr. Obama has left the political scene, even if he serves two terms — they start rising again sharply, to more than 5 percent of gross domestic product. His budget draws a picture of a nation that like many American homeowners simply cannot get above water.

I was really excited when President Obama was elected. I did not agree with the policies of the Bush Administration and I was eager for the change that he promised. In the year that has passed since that moment of elation, I have come to reverse my optimism if not my support.

As this article points out we appear to be heading for an era of daunting deficit spending and national debt. When I voted for Obama I was hoping that he would be able to make some decisions and throw out some of the ridiculous programs and policies that he was left with and turn the direction of the country towards a more austere and less risky path. This to safely return the wounded economy to a soft landing. Rather than make those priority decisions, however, he seems to be trying to do it all. He is acting as if he can restore the glory that was the bubble.

I don’t think we have solved our economic problems. With the help of the bailouts, the financial sector appears to have manufactured a little in-house boom but the rest of the country still waits for the doorbell to ring. If we suffer a secondary downturn in the face of these deficits I am really afraid to think of where the United States might end up.

News Analysis - A Decade of Enormous Deficits May Alter American Politics and Power - NYTimes.com

Banks Brace for Bonus Fury

Banks Brace for Bonus Fury - WSJ.com – I read these kind of headlines with a heavy heart.  America’s largest financial institutions are playing with our country.  If there was any sense of patriotism or nationalism in the hearts of Wall Street’s leaders, most of the money that is going into those bonuses would be focused, instead, on the parts of the economy that are still struggling to maintain life.  Money would be made available to the credit arms of these financial behemoths so that small business and frantic homeowners would begin to see credit flow again.

But that is not happening, is it?  The money is going to those executives that are withholding that help so that the stockholders will feel better about the economy and likewise the company itself. 

It seems obvious to me that these actions show that the companies are not interested in the health of the United States at all.  So why should the government of the United States be interested in pleasing them?  We need to get our priorities straight.  We need to help those parts of our industry that are committed to helping the United States.  Regulations should be put in place to limit outrageous compensation and directing the efforts of the financial community towards facilitating a recovering American economy.

Test Post from Word

I just discovered I can post to blogs directly from Microsoft word. This is a test post to test that possibility.

Well, it looks like it works. Amazing. This is my first upgrade to MS Office in many years. They have definately moved it into modern times. It actually seems to be integrated with the web in many ways.

Trying Windows Live

This is a test of the Writer feature in Windows Live to see how it works with the Blogger system.  Please disregard.