This is not a well-written article, for logical purposes alone (let alone the facts underpinning the logic). For example:
The fundamental problem is that there's no solid evidence that green policies—even those aimed explicitly at creating jobs—will actually lower the long-term unemployment rate.
One could also sate that, "The fundamental problem is that there's no solid evidence that [heretofore untested] policies -- even those aimed explicitly at [perceived social benefit] -- will actually [reach the goal of the policy]," and play a game of madlibs. For example, read the statement substituting the following their respective places:
- intergalactic space penis
- impregnating cylon drones
- bring about a sexual revolution
- complete Palestinian universal autonomy
- ending Middle East conflict
- do so
Moving on to another issue: that of definition. Levi says:
For many environmental advocates, of course, these discussions are of secondary importance; what matters most is that green jobs will help the planet. They'd be wise to be careful there, too. Indeed, the most successful green jobs program to date is one that no environmentalist wants to brag about: the conversion to corn-based ethanol.
Apart from the problem of lumping all people who share a concern about the fate of the environment of our planet (whether it is through peaceful or violent means, or whether it is because of a primary concern for human existence or ecosystem health) is a logical fallacy. Of course, it also difficult to separate everyone out into their respective groups, even using the two axes listed in my parenthetical. However, a hunter/fisher conservationist can be considered as much an environmentalist on some issues as a PETA or GreenPeace activist. Do they all have the same viewpoint? No. Is environmentalist a monolithic group? No. Although it may seem like a bit of digression, it goes to the point of asking which environmentalists consider corn-based ethanol a "green job" sector? Certainly very few of the greenies in my department. Calling something a "green job" when it holds very few actual environmental merits is a term that Levi should get to know a little bit better: "Greenwashing". The corn-based ethanol issue is not just an environmental issue (in terms of the pollution caused by raising the corn, distilling the ethanol, and distributing it), it is also a trade issue (in terms of government subsidies of US corn production, causing world corn markets to "slide") and a fisheries issue (in terms of the massive dead zone of deoxygenated water caused by fertilizer-based nitrogen-rich waters of the Mississippi River flowing into the normally nitrogen-limited waters of the Gulf of Mexico, and creating massive algal blooms that actually cause deoxygenation when the mat begins to sink into the water -- due to the weight of ever-increasing numbers of algal cells -- thus causing aerobic-respiration based decomposition by existing bacteria). There are also social issues relating to the change in the Gulf of Mexico fishery, health issues caused by nitorgen leaching into groundwater well systems, and long-term macroeconomic issues caused by backing ourselves into a corner by investing in massive infrastructure for corn-based ethanol (thus effectively closing the door on more efficient alternatives for ethanol prodduction) prior to a full exploration of alternatives. Is the corn-based ethanol sector a "green jobs" sector? Well, only if you consider the production of liquid fuel from sources other than fossil fuels "green." If that is the case, then (imho) it is a limited definition of "environmental", and therefore Levi is in more need to define who is included in his set "environmentalists".
Finally, I've seen better conclusions to papers produced by freshmen than what Levi's put up. Seriously, all he does is lightly revisit some of the casually and illogically "investigated" points he mentions in his article before stating that no matter what he has said previously, it is necessary for the US to make some sort of decision. Really? No shit? Woah! Why did I just spend all that time reading your points of view that counteract your very conclusion? If you wanted to make your piece a contrast analysis of different opinions, you should have set up your lines of evidence differently and set up your opening thesis as one that will show how -- regardless of the perceived deficiences -- the green economy is something that we should pursue.
1 comment:
Actually, having now read Michael Levi's article (thank you for bringing it to our attention), I don't see what's so bad about it. Of course, if one is talking about something like the space shuttle, it is too absolutist to say it won't work before it is tried. But it would also be absolutist to deny that the risk of failure is also ever present.
With respect to job creation schemes, there is plenty of evidence. Most studies that conclude that subsidies and mandates for corn ethanol have created hundreds of thousands of new jobs fail to examine where other jobs may have been lost. Dave Swenson, working at Iowa State University, has been a notable exception: see, for example, ""Input-Outrageous: The Economic Impacts of Modern Biofuels Production."
More recently, a study of Spain's very generous subsidies for renewable energy have shown that they have created 50,200 jobs -- at the cost of 570,000 euros ($730,000) per job. On the other hand, had the government left the 29 billion euros in the hands of the private sector, it would have created 113,000 jobs, according to the study.
Hence I agree with Levi when he says that the burden of proof lies with those promising a major expansion in jobs from "green jobs" policies to show how they arrived at their estimates. One thing that most analysts fail to consider is that -- "buy America" clauses notwithstanding -- one cannot assume that all the components that go into wind turbines, or what have you, will be manufactured in America.
That is not to say that one should not therefore support investments in renewable energy. The environmental benefits might still be worth it. But it does suggest that the way that government subsidies are invested in the economy matters; and new programs should be scrutinized closely, lest we lock ourselves into bad policies that will be difficult to reverse. Too often, I have seen, many environmental activists could not be bothered with the fine details of policy design. Their message to Congress is "just do it." And the average Congress person, who has insufficient time to weigh alternatives, is happy to oblige.
You criticize Levi for calling ethanol a "green" scheme. Perhaps there were enough opponents of corn ethanol at the start to disqualify it as having "green" origins. Certainly I would agree that the main motivation for corn ethanol has always been rooted in agricultural policy. But at the beginning of 2006 (when I started looking into government support measures for ethanol in the United States) there were precious few environmentalists -- very few among the mainstream Washington, DC environmental organizations -- who were daring to question the greenness of ethanol. Indeed, some were even lauding the subsidies to ethanol as "renewable energy for free", because: (a) it reduced commodity payments to corn; and (b) it was coming out of the USDA or Treasury, and not the renewable-energy programs of the Department of Energy.
As Levi writes, no [I would have said "few"] environmentalist wants to brag about the corn-ethanol program, But one still hears some of the mainstream environmental organizations (most notably WorldWatch and the NRDC) defending corn ethanol as a "bridge" to more sustainable biofuels.
Finally, Levi's conclusion (below) is consistent with the so-called Tinbergen Rule, one of the basic economic tenets of policy-making: to achieve a given [policy] target there must be an effective instrument, and to achieve various independent targets there must be at least an equal number of effective instruments.
We need a broad-based economic policy that focuses on job creation and an ambitious energy policy that protects the planet and makes us more secure. But if we try to build both efforts around a single goal of creating green jobs, we may fail to deliver over the long term on either front.
Post a Comment