The Conservative Cat

Firstly, your conclusion that "Green Jobs" are necessarily more expensive because they are "inserted into the supply chain by force" is erroneous. The fact that something is mandated is not necessarily indicative of its cost, and people don't always choose the cheapest alternative. Research has shown that economic actors have a "status-quo" bias, being generally resistant to change.

Secondly, that these "Green Jobs" are "inserted...by force" is also questionable, seeing as how high energy costs have already caused consumers to substitute out of driving and into cheaper products. Hybrid cars are also seeing a large increase in sales.

You also seem to equate "green jobs" with "green fuels"--something that is also wrong.

Also, your post has nothing to do with Maynard Keynes, so I don't know why you mentioned him in the title.

How about tax cuts as incentives?

What Greenie Weenies count on is that most people will play sheep to the slaughter to fuel the Greenie Weenies' Reality-based Fantasies w/o stopping to challenge the fantasies, since, well, they ARE based on some sort of twisted reality, aren't they?

Well the pizza hut fellow can't defend himself on his deliveries so he should have quit anyway.

Check out my blog

http://grandvalleyshootingsports.blogspot.com/

Rana, Keynes came up with the idea that the government could create jobs by economic force. I apologize for being obscure on that point. The original article included a long section about Keynes's ideas and why they stopped working, but on reflection it was rather boring, so I cut it out. The un-named research you cite about inertia in economic actors is interesting in a general sense, but it hardly seems appropriate to this case given the strong public interest in environmentalism over the past few decades.

The green jobs related to the fuel industry are the only ones where there's any economic justification at all. With the jobs related to environmental cleaning, it's obvious every single one of them is going to have to be purchased by reducing the standard of living; however, in the energy sector there's a reasonable possibility of economic benefit. Sadly, that's not what is going on. What's going on is that environmentalists have used the government to restrict the production of fossil fuels and nuclear energy in the United States. That's insertion by force. The sad thing is that because the American public doesn't realize ethanol is actually dirtier and more dangerous than gasoline, they are bending over and thanking you for the whack on the bum while the corn growers get rich off the proceeds and the people in underdeveloped countries starve. If it weren't so evil it would be a thing of beauty.