The "Fairy Tale" of Green Jobs

Stephen Moore slays all of the lies and hypocrisies behind AB 32 and the campaign to defeat Proposition 23 in today's American Spectator article. Key quotes:

It's hard to know where the fairy tale of "green jobs" first came from. It was probably a clever marketing scheme by radical environmentalists who realized that their anti-growth climate change agenda wasn't going to sell among the American electorate if workers realized how many jobs would be eviscerated by the new taxes and regulation.
. . .
The governor's office study concluded that California's already iron-fisted environmental and workplace regulations translate into about $176 billion in lost output and nearly 4 million lost jobs. This study was so embarrassing to the legislature and the Schwarzenegger administration that it was suppressed for many months, until several Republican legislators demanded its release.
. . .
Even the politicians in Sacramento are starting to realize the tomfoolery of one state trying to stop planetary global warming all on its own. So Mr. Schwarzenegger has been trying to persuade the governors of other neighboring states like Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington to sign a Western state cap and trade treaty. The other governors have declined, no doubt having observed how well climate change legislation has worked in California.

Sorry for the extended quotes, but the utter lies that have been issued arguing for California tackling global warming by itself are utterly preposterous. You could concede that global warming is real, man-made and catastrophic (which I don't) and still believe that AB 32 (which Proposition 23 merely proposes to postpone) is a crappy bill.

Stephen Moore cites examples of a cement plant and a steel foundry, both examples of carbon intensive industries, moving out of state. Not shutting down, mind you, but merely depriving Californians of much needed jobs.

If you click the "green worker" at the top it links to an economic study that concludes:

Unfortunately, it is highly questionable whether a government campaign to spur “green jobs” would have net economic benefits. Indeed, the distortionary impacts of government intrusion into energy markets could prematurely force business to abandon current production technologies for more expensive ones. Furthermore, there would likely be negative economic consequences from forcing higher-cost alternative energy sources upon the economy. These factors would likely increase consumer energy costs and the costs of a wide array of energy-intensive goods, slow GDP growth and ironically may yield no net job gains. More likely, they would result in net job losses.