Do people not understand that if jobs are lost to lower greenhouse gases that is an acceptable

[RB TexLa]

sacrifice?

[FreakinDJ]

1. That won't reduce Green House Gases

I suppose you are taking "Cap and Trade" which is and incredibly flawed plan.

In fact Green House Gases will continue to rise for decades (evan as long as 50 years) under that plan

[Posteritatis]

2. They do not. (nt)

[bigjohn16]

3. No

Most people don't see beyond their own daily needs.

[FreakinDJ]

9. Including China who is the largest producer of CO2 gas

and will continue to be so for decades into the future

You do realize that is where the jobs and the money from Cap and Trade will be going don't you.

Kinda like "Catch 22" they'll get more jobs so they will have to emit more CO2

[DeltaLitProf]

84. Except China is voluntarily taking action to reduce emissions too

So China would also be losing jobs if you fall for the false logic that reducing CO2 emissions always causes loss of jobs (which I don't).

[AllentownJake]

4. You can have both if you have fair trade

Tax the fuck out of imports in countries with bad environmental and labor standards, you'd be amazed at how many jobs you create.

[FreakinDJ]

5. DING DING DING - We have a Winner Folks

[laughingliberal]

6. Exactly! nt

[The Magistrate]

7. Hear Hear, Sir!

[ClassWarrior]

10. +1

NGU.

[OhioChick]

29. Agreed. n/t

[Deja Q]

33. +1,000,000,000,067,004^893. But

don't expect RB Arealnaiveguy to think that would do any good...

[MH1]

35. it really is such a simple solution

there must be a reason why it isn't done.

[Hippo_Tron]

86. Because people (in the aggregate) want cheap stuff from China

The people who have had jobs outsourced are a minority. I'm not saying their losses are not significant, especially given that outsourcing doesn't just destroy factories it destroys towns that are based around factories. But there are far more people who save money by buying cheap stuff from China than people who have been directly affected by outsourcing.

The computer you're typing on was probably made in a foreign country and probably was at least a few hundred bucks cheaper because of it. Now think about what you've spent that few hundred bucks and how you wouldn't have whatever you spent it on if your computer was made in America. I'm not saying that sacrifice isn't worth it, but the bottom line is that if we protected our industry more than we do now, stuff would be more expensive and thus people would have less of it.

[MH1]

90. I wouldn't have spent it, probably

which is one reason I am less worried (for my personal well-being) about the economy than most.

I wish I had viable fair-trade or locally-produced options for more of my essential purchases. Unfortunately the most common fair-trade options are things I shouldn't be consuming anyway - coffee, chocolate, and bananas. (that last because they disagree with me). I do manage to find some fair trade stuff to buy, like teas.

I used to make a point of not buying clothing unless it was at least made in the Western hemisphere. Now even that is getting harder and harder to do. And forget shoes. :(

But anyway just walking into a Wal-mart with all its kitsch useless junk that people spend money on, makes me almost want to throw up.

[amandabeech]

41. Fair Trade rules.

Now find a huge group of politicians who agree.

Ha.

[Nikki Stone1]

55. BINGO!

:hi:

[47of74]

8. And what of the people who lose their jobs and their incomes?

Hmmm? Think of that? Or is your nose so high up in the air that you cannot see such people?

[stray cat]

15. The sacrifice seldom volunteers to be slaughtered

and normally has a different perspective than the one putting them up to be sacrificed. Its much easier volunteering the people to be sacrificed....

[Spider Jerusalem]

18. Omelette, eggs.

Some people lose their jobs and incomes? Acceptable trade-off if the result is significant reduction in or elimination of the threat of looming environmental catastrophe. This is very simple, and many more people would be much worse off in the long run if nothing were done.

[Deja Q]

36. Fair enough. When will you resign from yours?

Oh, I see...

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle and a proper balance can be achieved.

But let us know when you spare the spurious morality that's good for everyone else, except you.

[Spider Jerusalem]

67. Well, let's see:

First, I don't work in manufacturing, oil refining, or indeed in an economic sector likely to be hit hard by carbon reduction; second, I am not in the US (I live in the UK), which unlike the US is a country that's actually taking the whole carbon reduction thing seriously. So, you know, if you want to talk about deciding what's good for you and fuck everyone else...the idea that American jobs are more important than the global environment is a shining example of that attitude. Mote, meet beam.

[CJCRANE]

11. Um...the whole point is that jobs will be created in the new green economy.

Where else is growth going to come from?

[Gabi Hayes]

17. you're right, of course, except that it's already too late, for several reasons. that said:

"Green economy" driving job creation, new UN report says Sep 25, 2008 ... "Green economy" driving job creation, new UN report says. Picture Wind turbines, Whiskey Dick Mountain. Heading off climate change already ...
blog.seattlepi.com/environment/archives/149581.asp - Cached

JOB OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE GREEN ECONOMY: warming and build a green economy in the United States. ...... Unified Program for Job Creation and a Clean Energy Economy in the United States.” ...
www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/other...types/Green_Jobs_PERI.pdf

A Green Jobs Primer: Job Creation in a Clean Energy Economy A clean energy economy will result in net job creation because green investments are domestic, have a large multiplier effect, and create work that is skill ...
www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/04/green_jobs_primer.html - Cached

Obama Proposes Home Energy Retrofit and Clean Energy Job Creation ... Obama proposed a rebate program to reward homeowners for making their homes more energy efficient, and asked for investments in energy efficiency and ...
greeneconomypost.com/obama-proposes-home-energy-retrofit-and-clean-energy-job-creation-programs-as-part-of-major-jobs-initiative-6777... - Cached

http://www.google.com/search?q=green+economy+job+creation&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8


Job Creation | The Green Economy Post: Green Careers, Green ... Total job creation, accounting for economic multiplier effects, ... Subscribe to The Green Economy Post – Your Link to Green Jobs and Careers ...
greeneconomypost.com/tag/job-creation - Cached
Show more results from greeneconomypost.com

Job Creation Potential of the Green Economy - ILO Home File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTM

Job Creation Potential of the. Green Economy – A U.S.. Perspective. Max Wei. University of California, Berkeley. Haas School of Business & ...
www.ilo.org/public/english/region/asro/beijing/.../greenjobs/max_wei.pdf

"Green economy" driving job creation, new UN report says - Seattle ... stv.tv Green economy driving job creation, new UN report says Seattle Post Intelligencer - Sep 25, 2008 Heading off climate change already is.
www.experiencefestival.com › ... › News - Green Economy - Cached

Job Creation and the Green Economy « Carrots and Sticks It's pretty clear that the net-effect argument, that green job programs don't create jobs when you look at the net-effect of the policies, will be the issue ...
carrotsandsticks.wordpress.com/.../job-creation-and-the-green-economy/ - Cached

Press Releases October 2008 - Global Green New Deal - UNEP Green ... These range from climate change; poverty; job creation for the 1.3 billion people under ... Accelerating this transition is at the core of the Green Economy ...
www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?...548...l... - Cached

South Korea 'Green New Deal' calls for spending and job creation Jan 6, 2009 ... Projects will range from dam construction to developing hybrid vehicles and the government and private sector will team up for environmental ...
www.greeneconomyinitiative.com/news/178/.../2009-01-06.html - Cached

[amandabeech]

46. Jobs in the green economy will be grown in China unless we do something

to penalize China trade-wise for their lack of labor standards, lack of environmental standards (enforced) and the ridiculously low value of their currency.

Otherwise, forget it. There will never be enough long-lasting green jobs.

You know who manufactures the most solar panels now, don't you?

[galileoreloaded]

47. Don't for get small wind turbines. 60% of the cost of American ones.

[amandabeech]

60. Let's hope that if people here buy them and install them,

they are better made than a lot of products that come from China.

I wouldn't want a wind turbine blade and tower to fall apart anywhere near me.

And, of course, they wouldn't be that shape if there were a level playing field.

For example, if the Chinese floated their currency instead of pegging it against the dollar, no matter how low the dollar falls, then the turbine would cost only about 1/3 less.

Maybe that would be enough to give more people an incentive to buy something made here, considering China's safety record.

Personally, I would never recommend buying something that potentially destructive from China.

[galileoreloaded]

48. You are right, growth is not coming. There is no engine.

[Oregone]

12. Depends on who is doing the sacrificing and if anything is actually being accomplished

[stray cat]

13. If you are the one who has lost or will lose your sole means of support

it probably seems a little different. I take it someone in your family earns some sort of income? In theory you are right but its a bit different if you are not in the situation you speak of.

[Deja Q]

45. Such as?

"I take it someone in your family earns some sort of income"...

I would surmise "his mommy and daddy" as the answer to that question.

[RB TexLa]

76. They have both passed. I'm sure you don't care, as I'm sure that was said to insult and degrade.

And now I guess you will want to insult and degrade dead strangers, and let me know how you think people love hearing you run your smartass mouth.

[Life Long Dem]

14. It's acceptable to lose jobs to a greening world.

From fossil fuels to renewable energy.

[havocmom]

16. The real obstacle is the very powerful & very wealthy who make $$ on the status quo

THEY are the ones thwarting progress toward creating jobs in developing and applying greener technology.

They can't figure how to meter the sun, wind, tides, heat of the earth, so they buy pols who will give economic treats to status quo energy (which they own) and throw crumbs to alternatives so they can say they are not economically feasible.

[MichiganVote]

19. Yeah, we should knock people off to start with. Why get their hopes up anyway.

:hide:

[Blue-Jay]

20. Flawed premise.

Do people understand that polluting less will result in monkeys invading your picnics?

In other words, there is NO reliable data that suggests lowering greenhouse gasses will result in a loss of jobs. NONE.

[RB TexLa]

21. That was why I said "if" it causes job loss. I did not claim it would for certain.

[Blue-Jay]

24. OK.

Then I suppose there's no point in continuing this conversation.

[Deja Q]

38. Or, perhaps, his beginning of it.

:D

[FreakinDJ]

40. You sound like a "Climate Change Denier"

[Blue-Jay]

43. ?

[FreakinDJ]

49. NO reliable data

"NO reliable data that suggests lowering greenhouse gasses will result in a loss of jobs. NONE."


"NO reliable data that suggests elevated greenhouse gasses will result in climate change. NONE."

see what I mean

[Blue-Jay]

52. Nope. Still don't see what you mean.

You're making a leap that Bob Beamon would be proud of.

Perhaps I could have left out the word "reliable". No data of which I'm aware suggests lowering greenhouse gasses will result in a loss of jobs. <--- Prove that statement wrong or crawl back in your hole.

If you have relevant information, please post it. Otherwise, I'll have to assume that you're being snarky because you're bored.

[FreakinDJ]

54. Looks as if you've dug a deep enough hole for yourself

Your not winning over any votes for your position either that is for sure

Most Americans (52%) believe that there continues to be significant disagreement within the scientific community over global warming.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.

Americans overwhelmingly believe they should focus on the economy instead. Seventy-one percent (71%) say the bigger priority for U.S. national leaders is stimulating the economy to create jobs. Only 15% say they should focus instead on stopping global warming to save the environment.

Most voters also think the news media makes global warming look worse than it really is.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/americans_skeptical_of_science_behind_global_warming

Good Luck on that whole "Cap and Trade" thing

Peace

[mamaleah]

57. You are just trying to find something he or she did not say.

They said there is no evidence that there MUST be job losses.

He did not say there is no evidence for climate change.

Stop trying to find things that someone didn't say.

[CJCRANE]

58. What if it's possible to do both? (create jobs and save the planet)

Maybe it's a false dilemma.

[Blue-Jay]

59. What the fuck are you yammering about?

Votes? I don't want any fucking votes.

I stand by my original statement (which had NOTHING to do with global warming) <-- you made that shit up.

"Good Luck on that whole "Cap and Trade" thing" - WHAT?!?! Who said fuck about Cap & Trade? (aside from you, that is)

Are you high?

[mamaleah]

53. Wait....

So now you cannot even use the words "no reliable data" without being called a climate change denier? Even if they weren't denying climate change? Are you trying to call someone a troll without being ballsy enough to do it?

I am sorry, who made you the patent holder of proper language? I mean besides your own twisted mind?

[Blue-Jay]

65. I have to assume that s/he misunderstood me.

It's my position that lowering greenhouse gasses, reducing pollution, and "greening" up our industries will result in a net INCREASE in jobs. I thought I made that apparent, but I suppose not. I've yet to see any reliable (trustworthy) data that indicates the opposite.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. done right we will gain jobs

Yes some people will lose their current jobs, as they do every day due to the changing nature of our economic environment, however real transformation of our global economic system to a sustainable energy base will result in lots of new jobs. Those jobs will go to the nations that are the technology leaders, and they are currently up for grabs.

What will cause enormous negative economic dislocation is doing nothing and letting 'nature' take its course.

[bridgit]

23. You just made Monica Crowley, Pat Buchanan, BP and EXXON's argument...

Major transitions like the ones birthing the next level of source-energy aren't always matched in the workplace dollar for dollar hour for hour http://www.eere.energy.gov The cotton gin and farm & harvesting equipment put allot of people out of work too, but that transition has already been made

[Fumesucker]

25. Depends whether it is *your* job or someone else's job..

Someone else's job is of course an acceptable sacrifice, your own job is not.

[NYC_SKP]

26. We will have MORE jobs, FFS. Where are you getting your information?

The longer we bathe in cheap outdated technology using coal and importing crude, the fewer jobs and more expense we'll have PLUS we'll be killing our children's future.

The time is 20 years ago to get on the goddam stick with newer technologies that will make us LEADERS in the world (hello?) AND create jobs!

:nuke:

Edit: change "bath" to "bathe". :P

[RB TexLa]

28. What information? I claimed no information to support anything. I said "if" jobs are lost

And if there is job loss, it is clearly acceptable.

[NYC_SKP]

68. You're right, I'm wrong in my interpretation. Yes, even if jobs were lost it's too important.

Sorry!

:thumbsup:

[CJCRANE]

27. Do people not understand that if jobs are created to lower greenhouse gases that is

a boon to the economy?

It's all in the framing.

[SOS]

30. Wall Street fraud has already cost millions of jobs and homes.

Acceptable sacrifice?

And haven't we heard this job loss propaganda before?

From The Energy Journal, reported in January 1993:

"The purpose of this paper is to quantify the economic impact of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The new legislation will reduce the national product by a further 0.6% when the impact is complete. Electric utilities and primary metals industries will be especially hard hit by this legislation."

Gloom and doom!

In retrospect, the 1990s turned out just fine.
The energy industry propagandists were just blowing smoke as usual.
The current dire predictions are energy industry BS, probably written by the same coal and oil lobbyists as the 1993 paper.

[dkf]

31. Yeah I'd sure like to sacrifice your job to improve/preserve

my standard of living.

But would I sacrifice mine?

[Deja Q]

34. He isn't worth sacrificing for.

:popcorn:

[Deja Q]

32. So how about you losing your job?

:popcorn:

[Fading Captain]

37. Until the gov't shows it supports the working class, these reforms will not be supported

Put food on the table. Put a roof over the table.
Then we can think about climate change.

[CJCRANE]

39. Trouble is the old economy fell off a cliff. We need a new economy

and maybe renewable and recyclable is the way to go. It could also lead to guilt-free consumption which is the goal of capitalism.

[Sebastian Doyle]

44. Fell? it was pushed!

Ross Perot might have been a few cans short of a 6 pack, but he called NAFTA exactly right - aside from the fact that the "giant sucking sound" didn't end up coming from Mexico in the long run, but from the other side of the planet.

[bridgit]

62. Well, fool that it was it danced on the edge and *then* fell

[RB TexLa]

42. Don't have that luxury, this is more pressing.

[mamaleah]

50. Right....

You aren't going to get people behind you if you tell them you do not care that they and their families will be homeless and hungry. They'll glom on to any politician who will support them.

There has to be a way to sustain jobs or no one will really give a damn. No one wants to go hungry for a cause.

But if you are volunteering to help those families, then go right ahead. Oh wait...I bet you you have a redistribution scheme to go with it.

[FreakinDJ]

51. desperate people could give a Fuck about the evironment

burn any thing they can light with a match to stay warm - Burn any thing the can to make a dollar to feed their family

Ever been to South America, Caribean, South East Asia, or the African Continent. If you had you would know what I mean. In fact there is quite a bit of empherical evidence to suggest economics plays a significant role in the release of Green House Gases

[Brickbat]

56. It's impossible for people who can't feed their kids to give a fuck about the environment.

nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

87. Truer words have never been spoken. Nicely done.

[Brickbat]

91. Thank you.

[CJCRANE]

61. How do you create jobs in the old economy? It's f***ed. We need a new economic model.

Sustainable growth is the way forward.

This jobs vs planet question is a false dilemma.

[1]

63. if we are ever going to turn this around, sacrifices will have to be made...

lost jobs, higher prices, $5 gasoline...

changes must be made and some will feel the pain.

[Gabi Hayes]

64. it's threads like this and the one linked below that make me wonder WTF the plumbing

is like inside OPer's head:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7207476

[WorseBeforeBetter]

66. Jobs wouldn't be lost -- jobs would be created.

Existing workers could be retrained. Returning soldiers could contribute to the green economy. Technology would be advanced. Unemployed Americans would be put to work -- environmental scientists, engineers, architects...

What's the problem?

[Hippo_Tron]

69. Simple economics, it's not more important if you are the one losing your job

Yes the total utility of humanity will be higher if we sacrifice x number of jobs to stop global warming, no question about it. But those people who will be losing their jobs will be losing their livelihoods and thus they will be worse off. Their behavior to try and save their jobs over stopping global warming is completely rational. If we deem this a serious enough problem to address we need to then give them economic incentives to embrace efforts to stop global warming otherwise they never will.

[Spider Jerusalem]

70. Too bad for some people.

The transition from an agricultural to an industrial economy in the 19th century left a lot of people out of work and uprooted, as did the transition to mechanised agriculture after WWII; the move from an industrial to a post-industrial economy starting c. the 1970's did the same thing. This is no different, and more necessary. And the hubris and arrogance of deciding that the relative negative consequences for the American economy, when the US represents 5% of the global population, and thanks to geographic good fortune won't experience the worst effects of climate change, are reason enough to oppose the needed changes to both economy and lifestyle, is, quite frankly, amazingly stupid.

[mamaleah]

71. Your attitude is as poor as any deniers attitude.

They say fuck the polar bears and you say fuck the people and their livelihoods.

You both sound like petulant little dipshits.

[Spider Jerusalem]

72. Apparently you've never heard of something called 'the greater good'

...what is good for the planet as a whole may not be 100% compatible with the economic self-interests of Americans, who represent 5% of the global population. In which case...too bad, really. If people are too selfish, shortsighted, and stupid to adapt to change out of necessity, then, yes, fuck them.

[mamaleah]

75. Well thank you for comfirming you are just as

heartless as the deniers.

And fuck you too.

[Spider Jerusalem]

77. Heartless? No. Realistic.

If economic changes necessary to move to a low-carbon economy cause short-term pain, it's still better than the consequences of maintaining the status quo just because people might lose their jobs.

[mamaleah]

79. Call it whatever you want.

But go ahead and look at some guy and his kids and say "oh well you cannot feed yourselves anymore. Fuck off". The sentiment will be returned.

[Hannah Bell]

83. it's not the greater good if most people lose economically.

esp since i see no evidence the ruling classes plan on giving up *anything* for "the greater good".

so it's not the greater good if the working class is the only group sacrificing.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

88. So it's okay for you to have that attitude but not the guy losing his job?

[Hippo_Tron]

73. See the problem is that this attitude will get you nowhere

First of all, you mistakenly assume that we're only talking about jobs in the Untied States. One of the major issues in this whole debate is the developing world and whether or not they should have to control their emissions as well. If they do it will mean job losses and loss of livelihood for millions in those countries as well.

But here's the bigger point. People aren't "stupid" as you claim, they are merely self interested. Giving up one's lifestyle to help people thousands of miles away isn't rational self interested behavior. That's how human behavior works, for the most part. If you want to convince people to do something about global warming you have to convince them that it is in their own self interest to do so. Calling them arrogant jerks is a surefire way to get absolutely nothing done.

[Spider Jerusalem]

74. Sure, but if the US doesn't what incentive do developing countries have?

None, pretty much. And the US has hardly made any efforts. The Kyoto signatories are committed to further cuts based on a 1990 baseline for carbon emissions; the US is offering a 17% reduction on 2005 levels (which would take US carbon dioxide emissions back down to...1990 levels).

[BzaDem]

82. I guess what the poster is saying is that the people who will lose their jobs have power over you

so you probably shouldn't attempt to win them over by telling them to go to hell.

After all, it is you who wants change that might result in their job loss. That means you have to hope that 60 votes in the Senate magically materialize to enact such a policy. The industrial midwest has disproportionate influence in the Senate, a body which is ALREADY designed to make big change almost impossible. They will simply elect representatives to tell YOU to go to hell, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

On the other hand, if you tried to win them over by explaining it in a way OTHER than telling them to go to hell (possibly by changing the policy to protect them), you might be more successful in getting the change you want actually enacted (instead of being merely academic).

[Hippo_Tron]

85. That's it in a nutshell

And it's not so much changing the policy to protect them so much as being creative about the policy so that there are economic incentives to reduce emissions. The fact is that the industrial Midwest's economy isn't sustainable in the long run and has been a disaster for working class people over the past few decades. But if you are proposing a bill that simply taxes carbon emissions and does nothing else then yes they will tell you to go to hell because to them it does do nothing more than kill jobs. However, if you propose a bill that tries to create new economic opportunities for the Midwest then they might start to listen. That's where the whole "Green Jobs" thing comes in.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

89. Somehow I think the clarity of your position will be lost on the dense.

[apocalypsehow]

78. Well played, but only the denser DU'ers are fooled by your positing of such false choices.

They are making fools of themselves burbling over your OP, so the laugh's on them, I reckon.

Jimmython must be over, eh?

[G_j]

80. agreed, a fallacy

....stealth attack

[apocalypsehow]

81. Tollbooth *Kick*

:kick: