Pushing For GREEN JOBS

[DeeryTheDeer]

How come more people aren't aware of the concept of creating green jobs, like setting up windmills or solar panels, instead of this stupid false dichotomy of environment OR economy? Perhaps I've answered my own question. The GOP and big oil companies want people to think that their way is the only way, and they don't understand the meaning of compromise. I don't know how well these petitions actually work, but it's worth a shot to get this concept more out in the open, like Occupy Wall Street (although apparently dems and repubs are still doing lockdown as usual, like Occupy never existed). Petition: Green jobs TOMORROW. Quick & Cheap. Here's how. | Change.org No matter what your stance on global warming/climate change is, I don't see how there's any downside to improving the environment AND helping the economy, besides angering big oil.

[tommo]

I don't see how there's any downside to improving the environment AND helping the economy, besides angering big oil. Not a downside I agree, people are just fucking stupid. If anything, green technology will require more people to work than oil or coal would. And the work would be a LOT healthier.

[Xei]

Have you bought solar panels yet?

[tommo]

I have. Well, my parents did. Actually my grandpa bought some for every household in our family. But yeah. lol Solar panels aren't really worth it yet. They will be soon. But wind is definitely worth it. One turbine can power 300 houses. And things like those artificial leaves which convert water in to hydrogen and oxygen using sunlight, they'll be the future more soon than solar panels I think.

[Alric]

I am against the government 'supporting' green jobs because they are so wasteful. Some how when the government gets involved we get giant wind mills that waste a ton of money, and then it turns out they don't produce any energy. The idea that government should be a customer of last resort is moronic. If no wants to buy a product it is because it isn't a useful product, why should we tax everyone in the country to spend money on worthless crap? There are green jobs and there are companies researching to make other energy sources more efficient. As they do become more efficient, you will see more people switching over to them. The last thing we need is government taking money away from productive people and companies and spending it in pork barrel projects that are labeled "green" when they don't actually do anything. That said, the government shouldn't be giving subsidies to oil companies either, that is also very wasteful and obviously not needed in the slightest.

[tommo]

Subsidies are needed if the product is too expensive. Solar panels for example. Or because it just needs to be cheaper to attract people to getting it. It's not always because the product is useless. In fact, i can't even think of a single example of that. It's also, for example in healthcare, so that insurance companies don't just fuck everyone over and pharmaceutical companies can't charge an arm and a leg for a few pills.

[Taosaur]

I am against the government 'supporting' green jobs because they are so wasteful. Some how when the government gets involved we get giant wind mills that waste a ton of money, and then it turns out they don't produce any energy. The idea that government should be a customer of last resort is moronic. If no wants to buy a product it is because it isn't a useful product, why should we tax everyone in the country to spend money on worthless crap? Gummint bad blah blah blah A project with a large up-front cost that will realize a small fiscal savings after 10-ish years is not attractive to private enterprise no matter how much it improves public health, national readiness, or our position in foreign affairs. Profit-driven organizations are no more interested in positive externalities than they are in negative ones like pollution and cultural homogeneity--unless we put a price tag on them. They can't even see far enough beyond the ends of their noses to keep the economy in working order. Infrastructure renewal and development, like pure research, simply doesn't happen without public funding. Some things--many things--in which there is little or no immediate fiscal profit still need doing.

[Alric]

It doesn't really matter how expensive a product is, only if its profitable or not. High end cars are expensive but there is a market for them so they sell. The only time you need subsidies is if there is no market for the thing, or its just not useful or practical. In which case we are just wasting money on things that either don't work or no one wants. And government has had some very badly done projects in the past that where supposed to be green but just wasted a lot of money. Saying that companies don't care about savings is silly as well. Obviously it is all about the money, and there are always companies looking at the future, and willing to spend now to make money later. There are many private research companies that develop things all the time, and there are even green ones. It just makes financial sense to put money into green technologies because many companies rely on oil prices which we all know to be unstable at times. Companies know this like anyone else, and so the ones in position to invest in other technologies do. It has been shown many times that government involvement distorts the market, and that it causes long term harm to economy.

[Taosaur]

It doesn't really matter how expensive a product is, only if its profitable or not. False, or at least simplistic. It matters whether the product or undertaking is the most profitable within the timeframe with which the company is concerned. In working that equation, companies ignore costs and benefits which are external to their business model: those which fall upon the public sector, private citizens, or other organizations. Most also ignore returns which will be realized beyond their frame of reference, which is often quarterly and almost never exceeds five years. You're trying to force a dodecahedron through a square whole. It would be lovely if economies and societies were as simple as you want to believe, but it's not the case. Profit is powerful and useful, but neither infallible nor incorruptible, any more so than government. Our society has been more distorted in the last century by a fawning devotion to profit than by subsidies or regulation.

[tommo]

It doesn't really matter how expensive a product is, only if its profitable or not. High end cars are expensive but there is a market for them so they sell. The only time you need subsidies is if there is no market for the thing, or its just not useful or practical. Dude, do you even realise what you're saying? And government has had some very badly done projects in the past that where supposed to be green but just wasted a lot of money. So.... when I said I literally cannot think of a single one, you were supposed to be more specific. Not just restate your previous statement.

[Alric]

Well like Solyndra, which was a solar company that couldn't make any money on its own. So it got a huge loan from the government, then went backrupt shortly after. Government spent half a billion dollars giving money to them and they didn't actually produce anything and now all the money is gone. In that case it didn't matter how much money the government gave them, if the market wasn't there, it wasn't there. As for companies seeing into the future, some do and some don't. I am not trying to make things overly simple but what you need to understand is that there are tons of businesses in the world and they all have different goals, and plans for the future. Some look at the near term, some the long term. To say that no company looks past 5 years is a little silly. If you look at say the drug industry where it might take 10 years to create a new drug, how could they survive if they took a 1 year view? They have to look at the long term. And many large companies in the fields of technology are looking very far ahead. as well. There is a huge market for green technologies, they just need to get the price down. Giving them money to buy expensive and inefficient products doesn't improve anything, nor does it force them to reduce prices to be more competitive, which is what they need to do to be a force in this market.

[tommo]

Your ideas may be right half of the time. Or less. But many, many things are better off run by government. If you think healthcare or road system or utilities are better run by private companies, you're just deluded as fuck.

[ThePreserver]

Triple Bottom Line: Equity, Ecology, Economy, (AKA People Planet Profits.) In the long term, all businesses need to support all three of these. Without people, they have no customers. Without a planet, they have no resources to use, without profits, they cannot survive. A healthy planet provides healthy people, providing healthy profits. Otherwise, a business is essentially unsustainable in the long-term.

[Alric]

We weren't talking about healthcare, roads or utilities. Though you can see how the government entirely destroyed the healthcare industry and see the super high prices we now pay for nearly everything because of their involvement. We were talking about subsidies. Where the government takes money from productive individuals and companies, and gives the money to unproductive companies that can't compete in the market. Basically subsides promote bad businesses by rewarding poor performing businesses with cash rewards. Which is a very bad practice.

[Taosaur]

Though you can see how the government entirely destroyed the healthcare industry and see the super high prices we now pay for nearly everything because of their involvement. No, actually, if you're talking about the USA we mostly see private companies pillaging the system because of "small government" types' obstinate refusal to let the government get properly involved.

[tommo]

Just gonna concur with what taosaur said and stop replying to you. If you can't compare countries with government run healthcare and private healthcare and see which one is clearly better.... well, you obviously are just incapable of seeing anything other than your ill-conceived ideas.

[Alric]

I am not entirely opposed to government health care, but what the government is currently doing and have been doing for a long time is just mucking everything up. It definitely isn't helping anything.

[Xei]

I'm still interested in what those pushing for mandatory spending on renewables have personally bought or donated. Deery?

[ThePreserver]

I'm still interested in what those pushing for mandatory spending on renewables have personally bought or donated. Deery? Also relevant: what they do NOT purchase. If they avoid as much consumption as possible (including oil, electronics, and energy in general.) On a related note (but unrelated to the quote); I think it's clever how each of the two political parties uses the OTHER as a reason for why things are terrible. Why can't we "fix" the environment? Republicans. Why are we in wars? Republicans. Why is the government spending so much? Democrats. Why are taxes increasing? Democrats. I recall a time when there was a Republican majority, virtually nothing changed. Remember the Democratic majority (AND President) that existed for 2 years? None of those changes happened, either. No one takes serious action; Democrats AND Republicans are in the pockets of big oil companies so much that they won't end oil subsidies. What would happen if we stripped our oil subsidies AND renewable subsidies completely? Oil subsidies are about 10 times higher than renewable energies. So instead they reinforce two competing industries, and someone (taxpayers) pay for it. If there were NO subsidies whatsoever, wouldn't gas prices would rise quite a bit? which would make renewable energy sources all the more attractive, spurring investment? Gas prices are so low in the US compared to other Western nations because our subsidies are so fucking high. Drop the subsidies, Big Oil declines, renewable energy doesn't need any help in this scenario (although we could use the excess to reinforce the industry.) Investors go where they have a future; as long as oil is subsidized and people continue to purchase gasoline, investors will have a future there. If oil is in decline, investors will go to where they have a future: renewables. Free market, in this scenario, is far more competent than our government in determining what is effective.

[Taosaur]

What would happen if we stripped our oil subsidies AND renewable subsidies completely? If we did it without first laying the groundwork for a transition, both the economy and the government would collapse. That scenario's a fantasy, though, because no politician could stay in office long enough to see it through; the bulk of the electorate would revolt. Also, while removing oil subsidies would make oil less competitive, it wouldn't remove the large up-front costs of retooling for new technology. Few institutions other than government are willing to risk early adoption when the payoff is more than ten years down the road and they may find they backed the wrong horse in terms of standards and continued development. One-time subsidies on installation are actually a great way to deploy this infrastructure, which puts us in a better position to roll back subsidies on coal and oil. With the economy and infrastructure we have, I suspect if we tried ripping off the bandaid, the arm would come with it.

[ThePreserver]

If we did it without first laying the groundwork for a transition, both the economy and the government would collapse. That scenario's a fantasy, though, because no politician could stay in office long enough to see it through; the bulk of the electorate would revolt. Also, while removing oil subsidies would make oil less competitive, it wouldn't remove the large up-front costs of retooling for new technology. Few institutions other than government are willing to risk early adoption when the payoff is more than ten years down the road and they may find they backed the wrong horse in terms of standards and continued development. One-time subsidies on installation are actually a great way to deploy this infrastructure, which puts us in a better position to roll back subsidies on coal and oil. With the economy and infrastructure we have, I suspect if we tried ripping off the bandaid, the arm would come with it. In the last 18 months, solar panel prices have been cut in half for the same efficiency. Prices are already competitive. Government is not supposed to decide winners and losers in the economy, the purpose is to establish law and protect rights. Tax incentives for solar installation is a better idea than no subsidies at all, but there should be a short grace period of 3-5 years, and then they should be phased out entirely. In 5 years, solar will be very affordable. People are living in a dream world where they think it's affordable to live in a house that is twice the average size of their parent's houses, consumes twice the energy, have 2-3 cars in the driveway for a family of 3 or 4. We have to change our lifestyle and live within our means for any REAL changes to happen. Enough with debt and credit spending; look at Europe, every country was buying up every other country's debt, and now they have nowhere to turn since they all spent beyond their means. Change of lifestyle is absolutely necessary.

[Taosaur]

Change of lifestyle is absolutely necessary. No argument there, but good luck prying suburbia's fingers off the gas pump.

[Xei]

That's the point... no centralised power is going to do anything. Just sit back and wait. Pretty soon it'll be unaffordable.