Thomas L. Friedman teases Gov. Perry and Rep. Bachmann for their poor grades in science class ("here is the Texas governor rejecting the science of climate change while his own state is on fire") and then, in a surprising twist, turns his attention to economics:
Not only has the science of climate change come under attack lately, so has the economics of green jobs. Here the critics have a point — sort of. I wasn’t surprised to read that the solar panel company Solyndra, which got $535 million in loan guarantees from the Department of Energy to make solar panels in America, filed for bankruptcy protection two weeks ago and laid off 1,100 workers. This story is an embarrassment to the green jobs movement, but the death by bankruptcy was a collaboration of the worst Democratic and Republican impulses.
How so? There is only one effective, sustainable way to produce “green jobs,” and that is with a fixed, durable, long-term price signal that raises the price of dirty fuels and thereby creates sustained consumer demand for, and sustained private sector investment in, renewables. Without a carbon tax or gasoline tax or cap-and-trade system that makes renewable energies competitive with dirty fuels, while they achieve scale and move down the cost curve, green jobs will remain a hobby.
Here is a link to my latest attack on the notion of green jobs. The basic idea is that the Federal Reserve, The President and Congress should pursue full employment. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should work to cost-effectively protect the environment. We should be color blind on the issue of jobs. If the EPA (or Congress) is trying to create green jobs then the EPA (and Congress) has taken its eye off the cost-effectiveness ball.
At least in the U.S., the worst thing you can do to try to protect the environment is make environmental protection too costly. "A carbon tax or gasoline tax or cap-and-trade system" are environmental policies that reduce the costs of achieving most any given environmental quality target.
