Recently the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts released a graphic purporting to show "green" technologies create more jobs than traditional energy sources. The graphic below has been distributed widely by advocates of creating "green jobs." This is a common assertion from the environmental left.
As I note in my book Eco-Fads, this claim is made by many on the left.
If you have stayed at a hotel recently, you have seen a card in the bathroom exhorting you to help the planet by reusing your towels, thus reducing the amount of water, energy and detergent used by the hotel. Such appeals are typically based on guilt - you reuse the towels and the hotel receives the financial benefit.
The success of such efforts, however, is tenuous because it is entirely contingent on the convenience and good will of the guests.
Westin Hotels, however, have harnessed the free market to find a better way.
One of the most common mantras from the state's Department of Ecology about climate change is to note the strong "scientific consensus" regarding the impacts of climate change. The consensus science comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN agency that releases reports highlighting what it believes is the best science on climate change and the impacts.
Once again, environmental groups are encouraging you to turn off your lights tomorrow night at 8:30 as part of Earth Hour. Supporters understand this is a symbolic effort, so they don't make too many claims about how much energy will actually be saved. Earth Hour, however, ends up providing a nice contrast between the current green approach and the alternative provided by the free-market incentives to do more with less.
There could hardly be a more stark contrast between the ability of the free market to provide effective environmental solutions and the failure of politically dictated efforts than the difference between the Toyota Prius C and the Chevy Volt.
A new study showing that local climate plans fail to reduce carbon emissions is drawing some fire from the environmental left. I will write a separate blog about that study (which confirms much of what we've said in the past), but what interested me was this claim by K.C.
Last weekend, the motion picture version of Dr. Seuss’s book "The Lorax" hit the big screen and it sticks in large part to the original 1971 storyline. In "The Lorax," a businessman, the "Once-ler," moves into town, cuts down all the trees and destroys the forest, air and water in the process. A furry creature, the Lorax, appears and proclaims, “I speak for the trees” and scolds the Once-ler for being "crazed with greed."
Last week, Crosscut featured an interview with the Chair of the Puget Sound Partnership Martha Kongsgaard. Martha complains about the $1.7 million in cuts to the agency, saying "the enforcement and the effectiveness of what they do and how they carry out their work is really eroded."
The House Democrats' blog, "The Advance," offers this environmental statistic: "Over five million trees are cut down each year to print white pages directories." That led the caucus to title the blog post containing that statistic "Yellow Pages/White pages kill trees and that makes me cry."
One of the mantras frequently heard from environmentalists is "reduce, reuse, recycle." The combination of those three approaches is used because no single approach is suitable for every situation when reducing our environmental impact.
When political desires intercede, however, that simple truth gets forgotten.