Mobilizing for a zero-carbon America: Jobs, jobs, jobs and more jobs

ourenergypolicy.org

1 point·infinite8s··4 comments

That "zero-carbon America" would create so many jobs is actually a sign of the inefficiency of renewable energy compared to hydrocarbons. Also, jobs will be lost in manufacturers that depend on cheap and reliable electricity. You could also create a ton of jobs by banning farming equipment, but that would make you much poorer.

Renewable energy can only be considered inefficient compared to hydrocarbons if you ignore the externality of fossil fuel-driven climate change potentially destroying civilization.

By your analogy, growing poisonous weeds instead of food crops on farms could possibly be done more efficiently, if you ignore the externality of the effects of eating the results.

I have seen estimates the climate change will reduce world GDP by about 6% by 2100, which is about 3 years of economic growth. So in 2100 the world will only be about as rich as it would be in 2097 without climate change. That is far from "destroying civilization", and I think that many of the actions proposed in the name of climate change will cost more than 6% of GDP by 2100.

If your estimates are true, focusing solely on GDP once again ignores the externality of the millions of people who will die or be displaced by climate change.

Saying "GDP will come out okay" is equivalent to saying "the rich will come out okay", which may well be true, and you may find that comforting. Other people, perhaps not so much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com