So stunning in its stupidity, so ridiculously far-fetched in its claims, it’s verging on one of those big lies a la Josef Goebbels we’ve been talking about:
North Carolina could net more than 300,000 new jobs by 2020 by implementing energy efficiency programs and using more renewable energy, according to a report presented Tuesday to the Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change. The preliminary report is an attempt to quantify the economic result of more than 30 policy options suggested by an advisory committee established to help lawmakers develop a global warming response plan. All the recommendations of the Climate Action Plan Advisory Group, if approved, are expected to return the state to 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions within 13 years. (10/23 Associated Press)
The reporter reports as if there were no smile to be cracked, no snort to be swallowed, nor guffaw to be stifled. 300,000 new jobs? Surely they don’t mean net jobs (well they can’t mean that).
How many times do we have to remind people that we can "create" thousands of jobs in the glassmaking industry by breaking windows around the state. The costs will be displaced, and thus jobs lost (or never even created) somewhere else in the economy.
Then, with these prosperity-destroying policies, we’ll achieve "1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions within 13 years"? I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. And I’m not the only one giggling through my tears, read this from a "green" economist — one who is normally way too charitable to carbon-neutrality enterprise to begin with.
I just wish any economist – much less these rent-seeking enablement committee – would or could explain to me with a shred of earnestness how they expect this clusterf*%#$ of Pigovian taxes, subsidies, fees, and other assorted technocratic measures are going to save the planet when we don’t even know whether the warming of 1 or 2 degrees will harm the planet to start with (nevermind the issue of whether humans are causing the warming).
(Update: Roy Cordato not only slams the N&O for its irresponsible coverage but the team of "experts" that released the report and their dubious funding sources.)