The debate is not between people who are arguing for a green jobs approach and for people who want an equally ambitious clean-energy agenda focused in a different way. The debate is between people who think climate change and associated environmental problems (including ocean acidification and mass extinction) are real and need a robust public response and people who think they are not real and do not need a robust public response.
For the last two weeks, I have been arguing (validly) that President Obama is right to cut NASA's budget, right to kill the Constellation program, and right to reassess NASA priorities for the coming decade. Does anyone, really, think that just naively throwing money at NASA is better than not throwing money at NASA?
Doesn't anyone want some oversight, and possibly some analysis done about what would best serve America's long-term space interests before we dump billions of dollars on NASA.
How is pre-spending analysis a valid argument for NASA spending, but for environmental spending I should just shut up and be content that any money is being thrown at environmental ideas? Why should I be told "you are right" to chide bureaucrats who want pork space projects (pigs in space, heh heh) funded, but if I mention that green jobs are not the solution to America's economic woes, and are really just fluff that politicians spout to sound "green" and full of ideas, I am told that I'm making things difficult?
The fact is, if we are going to spend money anywhere, we need to analyze how best to spend that money. If the government is going to spend money on "green", then it should do so in the best way for long-term success in this nation, and I believe that would be done best by creating new markets, not by crowding out old ones.
Would you buy a laptop, any laptop, if you needed one, or would you shop around and try to get the best bang for your buck? Please. And no, TPI I disagree with you, tis NOT better to have spent and wasted than to have never spent at all.
_
0 comments:
Post a Comment