“In better economic times … fine, you can do all this green stuff.”

[billeisele 122]

interesting article on the cost to be Green, from an economic perspective this is crazy - even for CA
http://www.burbankleader.com/the818now/tn-blr-1103-big-bill-for-eco-power,0,6776897.story

and so I don't get blasted or my position "assumed" (lighten up GA guy), in general I support good economic decisions where costs are considered and managed appropriately, in this case it doesn't appear to make sense, I do find his quote inferring that it would be OK to do this if the economy were good rather interesting

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[ShcShc11 0]

...then we forget the cost Public and Private for cleaning up pollution.

[billvon 2,396]

> I do find his quote inferring that it would be OK to do this if the economy were good
> rather interesting

For the most part I agree with that. There are programs that are best implemented when the economy is doing well, and those include big 'optional' programs (new highways, rail lines, green projects, military expansion etc) This philosophy funds those programs when there is money to fund them.

However there are some drawbacks:

1) Generally when the economy is doing well politicians give people tax breaks (tax breaks are a great way to get re-elected) rather than doing things like paying down the deficit or paying for projects that have been queued up.

2) Funding projects when the economy is doing well, then cancelling them when it's not, leads to bigger bubbles and more severe recessions, since you are adding jobs when the economy is doing well and firing people when it's not.

[livendive 8]

Their city goals had them getting from 10% in 2010 to 30% in 2016, so 20% in 2013 seems like a reasonable interim goal.
http://www.burbankwaterandpower.com/environment/renewable-energy

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

...then we forget the cost Public and Private for cleaning up pollution.

Of course. We DO forget these costs. As an economist (it appears you are an economist) you know that there is nothing without cost. Including “opportunity cost” – which is pretty fundamental.

Here there are issues of “explicit costs.” How much does hydrocarbon fuel cost? Pretty simple – we all see it.

Then there is implied cost. What goes along with the cost of that? There are implied production costs. And then other costs – such as those to the environment – that are spread everywhere.

These costs are not absent in solar power. These costs are not always measured by the dollars for cleanup but rather by the subjective costs of quiet enjoyment. As are the human costs – the loss of industry and of jobs and careers. Building “green jobs” bears the cost of “non-green jobs.” View the Rust Belt for consequences. Recall films from the 70’s and 80’s set in Steel Mill towns. There has been advancement but also costs.

Politics easily tolerates a concentrated benefit and a diffuse cost. Politics views concentrated cost and diffuse benefits not nearly so kindly. Since I had the opportunity to review the PBS show that Quade put out there, it did get me thinking on this. And this is, indeed, my new idea about it.

The green revolution may benefit society as a whole. But there will be near-term societal costs as infrastructure is funded. Also, there will be great concentrated cost in those industries that will go the way of whale oil. Those costs are real. They are explicit and implicit.

For a decent read (I’m sure you’ve read this but it’s out there for others) view “I, Pencil.” This is in excess of 50 years old.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

> I do find his quote inferring that it would be OK to do this if the economy were good
> rather interesting

For the most part I agree with that. There are programs that are best implemented when the economy is doing well, and those include big 'optional' programs (new highways, rail lines, green projects, military expansion etc) This philosophy funds those programs when there is money to fund them.

As you noted in #2, this would take away the most useful sort of government stimulus spending. If the feds are going to borrow money to pump up the economy, far better that it be for something we'll use and benefit from for the next 50 years. Highways, rail, bridges...or more locally, the newer buildings for the UC and CSU campuses tend to be initiated in the downturns.