Bishop Hill Anthony Giddens, economics and logic
A few weeks back, I reported some snippets from the House of Lords debate on energy. The second reading of the bill took place just before Christmas and had many interesting points, several of which came from Lord Giddens, the sociologist and Labour party guru.
Last time round, I majored on the long-since refuted claims that "green" jobs were a benefit of government policy. I therefore read with some hope these words of Lord Giddens:
...job creation is often mentioned as an important outcome of investment in home insulation, renewable energy and wider energy innovation. However, there is an awful lot of loose talk around this, some of which appears in government documents,I am afraid.
Correct. However, the noble lord quickly demonstrates that his own take is remarkably deviod of substance...
Where it is said, for example, that wind power will create so many thousand jobs, what is important is not the jobs that are created by specific technologies or innovations but, because jobs will be lost in the older energy industries, the net new jobs that are created. Have the Government done a calculation of net job outcomes from the innovations in the Bill and the wider innovations that are proposed? Without that, you cannot say that these innovations will create net new employment. Most new technologies tend to reduce the need for labour rather than expand it. This is an important aspect of investment in new energy technologies and I feel that a lot more work must be done on it than I have seen. As I said, many statements on this topic are simply superficial.
They are indeed. As has been said ad nauseam, we want to generate the energy we need with as few people as possible. So Giddens would appear to be one of those people making superficial statements about green jobs.
Earlier in the debate, Lord Lawson had referred to the government's proposals as "dirigiste", a characterisation that seems quite apt. However, he was taken up on this by Giddens, who replied with a spectacular piece of circular logic:
The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, called them “dirigiste” proposals, essentially as a way of dumping on them. I would say the opposite. I think that it is right and proper in energy and climate change, where you are planning for a 20-year or 30-year cycle, to have a plan.
Reader Comments (21)
These guys can't see past the noses on their faces, really.
The issue is not how many jobs are created by making windmills.
The issue is how many jobs are gained - or lost - because a business enterprise (outside the energy field) that can be quite profitable paying, say, US$0.15/kWh becomes marginal if it has to pay US$0.30/kWh and a thorough failure at US$0.45/kWh.
If your economy gains 5000 jobs making rectal combustion turbines for unicorns but loses 500000 jobs in downstream business activity because feeding unicorns silken thread and mulberries costs US$0.50 per kWH (and they won't break wind if they're sulking 16 hours a day about not being able to fly with an impediment strapped on their backside) how far ahead are you?
I'm still amazed at the "green" capture of politicians across the western world.
Either they're in on it, or they're stupid. Neither is a recipe for success.
Against ("green," sic) stupidity, the Gods themselves are helpless.
Giddens seems to be challenging the "accepted" wisdom that there will be a net job gain through hiring in the green industries. Sounds to me like a good thing to be dubious about. Am i missing something here?
Our pols on this shore are constantly bloviating about all the green jobs. Little doubt in print, at least, from anyone.
Barry Woods (in the unthreaded thread) had flagged the speech by Baroness Noakes at 1.45pm , following Lord Lawson's at 1.16pm . Both excellent, but how absurd is it that of all these pillars of the community, we must search so hard for those rare individuals who still retain common rational sense? Mad world. Baroness Noakes's speech ends with this memorable quote:
'This cuddly green bunny of a Bill conceals some of the most unsatisfactory aspects of legislation that we ever had to contend with from the previous Government. There are policies with zero detail and no timetable for the emergence of that detail; there are sweeping powers for the Executive, constrained only by the weak parliamentary safeguard of the affirmative procedure. There are virtually no details of costs or benefits for major parts of the Bill, where there are at best aspirational statements in support of them. I hate to say it to my own party on the Front Bench, but this is no way to govern.'
The approximate societal value of a job is the wealth it creates. If a green job is producing, say, 1,000,000 green blivets a year that cost £30 each, but replace brown blivets at only £10, you're creating £10,000,000 annually, not £30,000,000. You must then subtract any subsidies plus interest on the extra investment required to produce green blivets, plus the amortized write-down on the brown blivet industry, plus the cost of retraining and reemploying workers. In most cases, the net value of a green job will be negative.
Sadly it may be the case that the pension boosting sinecure of the upper house is as toothless of energy as it is of dentition. Noakes and Lawson excepted.
If the HoC is the "Are you being served" branch of UK Plc, then, without doubt, the HoL is the "Last of the summer wine"
How sad that a once proud nation should be served, so badly, by those whom Winston warned would rather prefer to sink into unremarkable but comfortable obscurity than raise a hand to confront the demons that will consign the generations that follow into wretched servilitude!
Without his eloquence, all I can chip in, is this; you b***ards, may you rot in Hades.
Once, for the free education that you received and have swept away for those who came afterwards. You don't give a damn for the children, do you?
Twice, for the inverse relation that exists between your ability and your status. Your blind acceptance of the disconnect between Technolgy and Belief is going to Kill a lot of people this year, as it did last year. But the last year you were cold and miserable was when your expenses got knocked back, wasn't it?
Not quite as life-threatening as it is to some poor-sod on a pension, or a high-tariff or pre-paid power card .
Thrice, for the sheer BS, hypocrisy and pretend concern for the plight of others that you've employed over the years.
It'll be of little comfort to those who will inherit your legacies that your bluster and incompetence in a job for which you were well paid, will reap a poor harvest. Their futures were in your hands and you've thrown them onto a midden.
RIP, politicos. You are the bleakest link!
Incredible that these fools sit in that place and lord and master over us when they have absolutely no grasp of the harm they are doing!
Green jobs! Yep, lets unilaterally raise power prices to beat a threat that does not exist. Its okay, the companies using the power will pass on the cost to the consumer who will, for sure, purchase an article made in the UK, at double the cost of the same article, made in say China, purely as an act of nationalistic pride! That. of course, will only be able to happen as long as we install 1000's more bat killer and 100,000's of solar panels.
Why the hell can these people not simply look to Spain and Germany to see the damage that has been done and the proof that green destroys jobs!
It would appear that there is absolutely no way to destroy the cognitive dissonance of followers of the religion!
Phew, I feel better for that!
The economics of the "new good green" (NGG) jobs is very bad.
The people pushing these NGG ("new good green") jobs have no understanding of economics.
Producing additional goods and services with the same workforce increases the wealth of the country, which means higher incomes for all, leading to increased purchasing power, increased production of other commodities and in turn, additional jobs all round.
Producing the same amont of electricity with additional employees means that there is less ability to produce other goods and services.
This reduces the wealth of the country and means that wages must fall or jobs must be lost somehere else in the country, or more likely some of each.
As most of these NGG jobs seem to be targeted at the form of alternative energy generation which is the least effecient and effective, it seems that this is a plan to create the maximum "disasterous economic disruption".
The simple answer to Luddite Giddens :
When new technology achieves the same effect user fewer workers, consumers then increase their spending on other items, boosting employment in those other industries. Net effect on employment : nil.
Oil Gas and Coal work because they produce cheap energy on demand, Green energies will only work when they produce the same or cheaper energy. That technology does not currently exist so more investment is needed to create these cheap technologies not to blindly use the existing expensive ones.
Green Party Manifesto 2010 General Election Manifesto:-
"Our energy policy is not just the best for climate change - it also produces the most jobs."
Energy source jobs per year per terawatt hour:-
Wind 918-2400 / Coal 370 / Gas & Oil 250-265 / Nuclear 75
############
"They are clearly stating that having more people, rather than fewer, generating the energy we use is a good idea. As one wag (Dave Evans, an internet pseudonym but you know who you are) has pointed out, a recent BBC TV programme showed that if uou hook up a generator to a bicycle then each rider will produce 800 Wh per eight-hour shift. If people are whipped into doing this 365 days a year then we'll be producing 3.4 million jobs for each terawatt hour of energy."
-Tim Worstall.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chasing-Rainbows-Economic-Myths-Environmental/dp/1906768447/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1293444126&sr=1-1
Of course, the other point which must be emphasised is that bicycle dynamos can reliably produce electricity.
Wind turbines can't.
Ha, Martin, thanks for that.
Ausidan is right here. The important point is opportunity cost. The true price of something is whatever you must give up in order to get it.
Every 100 people working on windmills means 100 people not working on caring for babies, curing cancer or supping a quiet pint.
Thus the cost to us as a whole of those 100 people working on windmills is the uncared for babies, the uncured cancer and the pleasure forgone from unsupped pints.
Jobs are a cost, not a benefit, of a plan.
"Jobs are a cost, not a benefit, of a plan."
Spot on - but the "costs" referred to are economic not political. The pseudo-jobs created mean real votes for the politicians perceived to have "created" the jobs and fears by those getting/holding those jobs of the consequences of stopping the flow of taxpayers' money to support them. As we saw in the last election Labour depended substantially on the public sector non-jobs created since 1997 to keep it in government. That Labour achieved the proportion of the total vote it did receive (rather than being totally humiliated) is a tribute to its non-job creation programme and the cupidity of the benefiterati. Accordingly, for the political class, "greenism" and ecolunacy is common sense and another way to maintain itself in power.
woodentop
A third possibility is that it is those who deny the reality of climate change who are stupid.
Baroness Noakes's speech ends with this memorable quote:
'This cuddly green bunny of a Bill" Baroness Noakes knocking the stuffing out of it? <------------Josh!
Baroness Noakes seems to wear a white hat, IIRC she got the ID card bill defeated too.
legjoints...
For heaven's sake, keep up.
This thread is about economics and logic, not about climate change.
Nobody on this thread disputes climate change but none of the energy solutions put forward by the greenies works. They won't work whether the climate is changing or not or whether it's warming or cooling. And if they did work they're not cost-effective and the market distortions introduced by government (which refuses to listen to sense) are costing lives this winter.
Twice as many people were in fuel poverty in 2008 as in 2003 and that figure can only have increased since. I've said it elsewhere: the choice for too many people this Christmas has been "heat or eat".
And accepting your version of the facts of climate change is not going to alter that.
Unfortunately those of us who have been so concerned about the lack of logic and understanding of climate by ghe AGW proponents are now looking at this the wrong way. There is a new focus, although not yet discussed openly by green supporters. The climate scare support is fading so the mantra is changing.
Unfortunately we really need to be starting to consider hot to combat the next wave of absurdity - absurd but terrifying! After having some in-depth discussion with a deep greenie over Christmas, forget about 'green' anything - 'green' is out, and this includes discussion on carbon (now a non-issue) and AGW or its equivalents.
The new focus is 'Clean air, clean water, clean food'. Anything to do with the production of energy involving mining (e.g coal, underground gas) is raping the earth and of course solar, wind, wave power okay (definitely not nuclear); damming water (we must not be raping the water produced by rain - that is for the environment) but recycled water from desalination etc. is appropriate for humans; food can only be produced without chemicals and it is of no great issue if production declines - humans will just have to wear it and reduce our standard of living. This also includes anything to do with modern day living, such as business, housing, transport, etc. Factories impact on clean air as does travel by plane or car.
If you really have a look at the actions of governments lately, and the proposed developments from Cancun, this is the true basis.
As a non-scientist and ordinary human being, how do I answer this? I really think those people with the knowledge should be helping us develop a response. Saying that air/water/food is now cleaner in most parts of the world than ever before merits a pitying look.
However, I firmly believe this is the next stage and we should be ready for it.
Sam the Skeptic
That's good to hear, but you know there are people out there who still find themselves unable to come to terms with the overwhelming evidence linking our burning of fossil fuels to the current warming, preferring instead to believe some nonsensical conspiracy theory. If you ever come across one of these types. you might find it a bit like bumping into a flat-earther. You can show them the evidence for the earth's roundness, the shots from space etc., but they'll say they're fakes, and then they'll ask you why, if the earth really is round, we don't all fall off.
JanP
By "AGW proponents" I take it you mean those who want us to carry on burning fossil fuels, and at ever increasing rates. For some of these people, those with the loudest voices, they're part of the fossil fuels industry so all they're really doing is trying to protect their businesses, albeit in increasingly desperate ways, rather like the tobacco companies did a few decades ago when the science linking smoking to cancer had become pretty well known and accepted by the public but the tobacco barons were still refusing publicly to admit any link between their product and cancer. But in the end, when their denialism had made them figures of fun, they had to relent and accept the science.
I'm not sure that Giddens is guilty of circular logic in that last excerpt. AFAICT he wasn't denying that the proposals were dirigiste: he was denying that it was inappropriate for them to be dirigiste. Given that, for example, France's nuclear dirigisme seems to be working out fairly well these days, I'm not sure he doesn't have a point either. At the least, it seems clear that the big problem with the current UK energy strategy is not that it's dirigiste but that it's simply inconsistent or wrongheaded in more substantive ways.