Environmental Capital picks up on the Freakonomics Quorum:
Over at Freakonomics, three clean-tech experts are debating the outlook for clean-energy investment in the middle of the recession. The thrust of the question is: Which is more important for the future of clean tech—the price of oil, or what happens in Washington?
John Whitehead, a professor of environmental economics at Appalachian State University, sees the sector’s future through the prism of simple economics ...
Simple? My quips are based on a 1329 equation model of the macroeconomy. ;->
If we are satisficers, we'll probably choose what seems appropriate to us in the moment.
I think it's nice that green jobs are bubbling up in those policy circles, just because the more rational alternatives (like taxes on coal and other fossil fuels totaling all real externalities) don't enjoy the same mindshare.
Posted by: odograph | January 08, 2009 at 05:59 PM
odograph,
nice point there. Something at least creates some movement and promoted policy. But what happens when the current crisis is over and job creation is no longer the priority of the voter? Back to the same old policies?
Posted by: Carlos Ferreira | January 09, 2009 at 05:18 AM
It's a good reason to prefer programs that are naturally short-term. You can't change the traffic lights and insulate the public buildings after they are all changed/insulated ... if "they" want to translate their insulation program into a longer term thing, call them on it.
(Maybe we should favor "program based" rather than "institution based" spending.)
Posted by: odograph | January 09, 2009 at 10:12 AM